4 ms·

By "science" I just mean clear, rational thinking that is based on empiricism and does not have a prior commitment to a particular metaphysics or worldview.

Jedd 3y ago
Well, I'd say that empiricism is a) a subset of what science is / means, and b) empiricism by itself would rule out any supernatural, by definition. Did you have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before you came to conclude that ".. the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god"?
- jononomo 3y ago
  It sounds to me like you're starting with the assumption that empiricism must rule out the supernatural. That is what I mean by having a prior commitment to a metaphysic, and is therefore not a truly scientific approach. As for me, no I do not have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before concluding that the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god. Rather, it is the other way around -- it is the empirical observations about life that lead to the conclusion that it must have been designed by a superior intelligence. Obviously, you cannot begin with the assumption that the supernatural must be ruled out and then come to the conclusion that the supernatural must be ruled out without engaging in circular reasoning. Let the evidence guide you based on reason, but don't begin by assuming your conclusion.
  - Jedd 3y ago
    I'm kind of happy with this pithy summary - plucked from the internet just now - of the definition of, and differences between, rationalism and empiricism: "rationalism is the knowledge that is derived from reason and logic while on the other hand empiricism is the knowledge that is derived from experience and experimentation." In any case, empiricism is all about evidence based, typically via experimentation, so I'm still confused how you'd go about proving something unprovable (and almost certainly non-existent) by evidence and experiment. I think if you could demonstrate evidence of the supernatural, it wouldn't be supernatural. What empirical observations about life lead you to want to believe that life was designed by a superior intelligence? Is it the eye? (I note that ~60% of the population need glasses.) Is it smallpox, malaria, Leigh syndrome, etc? These don't feel like the result of an especially sophisticated intelligence. Is it the famously circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe's neck? Perhaps it's the the fact that Earth is one of about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe, therefore we must be special?
    - jononomo 3y ago
      What is it about the Rosetta Stone that makes you think there was an intelligence behind it, rather than wind and erosion? Surely you don't believe that science cannot in principle detect the activity of intelligence, do you? If so you would have to dismiss anthropology, forensic science, cryptography, and the SETI project. As for your point that if you can detect the supernatural then it isn't supernatural, well, I almost took the time to address this in my earlier response, but decided to save my breath. Basically, I don't care whether you decide to define God as natural or supernatural -- the point is that we can determine with certainty that life is the product of an intelligence.
      - Jedd 3y ago
        If you could prove the existence of any of the gods, this would be a pretty popular capability with deity advocates the world over - but given no one's come up with such a proof, and you haven't demonstrated one here, I'm inclined to go with the standard view that it's impossible. The Rosetta Stone - aligned with and correlated existing writing / languages with a huge swathe of corroborating material. There was nothing mystical about its content - it was a pretty pedestrian payload, if I recall.
        jononomo 3y ago
        The existence of life is proof of the existence of God. That's the end of the story. The language of DNA makes the Rosetta Stone look like the scribbles of children. No technology ever conceived by the mind of Man can hold a torch to the complexity and intricacy of the technology of life. We don't even understand it. It is not just a machine, it is a machine to build a machine. It is "code" in the most profound sense of the word. Frankly, it is language. A poet might call it poetry. (And, of course, all human poetry is its by-product.) You referred earlier to "some increasingly gap-reduced hypotheses...", which is just another assumption you've made that is not only unwarranted but at odds with the actual "progress" being made on this front. The more powerful our exploratory tools become, and the more deeply we understand organic chemistry, microbiology, and nanotechnology, the larger the "gaps" appear. In Darwin's day single-celled organisms were assumed to be simple -- just little blobs animated by "life-force". But now we know they are complex machines beyond anything Darwin could have imagined. We are widening the gaps as we learn more, not decreasing them. You are assuming, as is typical, that scientific progress always reduces gaps, and so you conclude that the gaps on this front must be getting reduced. But they are not, and you're merely begging the question again. In fact, a good title for a book on this topic would be "The God of the Gap" because if you want proof of the existence of God, then the existence of life provides it. And not only is the proof clear, but it has been readily apparent to practically all humans since the beginning of time. Only in the last couple hundred years have some midwits arisen who think they have somehow done away with God. Invariably they turn out to merely have a college-level understanding of what science is and how it progresses. By your reasoning, one only needs to assume there is no God in order to conclude there is no God. But reality does not bend to your assumptions, and nor does it bow to your circular conclusions.

Jedd 3y ago

Well, I'd say that empiricism is a) a subset of what science is / means, and b) empiricism by itself would rule out any supernatural, by definition. Did you have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before you came to conclude that ".. the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god"?

jononomo 3y ago
It sounds to me like you're starting with the assumption that empiricism must rule out the supernatural. That is what I mean by having a prior commitment to a metaphysic, and is therefore not a truly scientific approach. As for me, no I do not have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before concluding that the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god. Rather, it is the other way around -- it is the empirical observations about life that lead to the conclusion that it must have been designed by a superior intelligence. Obviously, you cannot begin with the assumption that the supernatural must be ruled out and then come to the conclusion that the supernatural must be ruled out without engaging in circular reasoning. Let the evidence guide you based on reason, but don't begin by assuming your conclusion.
- Jedd 3y ago
  I'm kind of happy with this pithy summary - plucked from the internet just now - of the definition of, and differences between, rationalism and empiricism: "rationalism is the knowledge that is derived from reason and logic while on the other hand empiricism is the knowledge that is derived from experience and experimentation." In any case, empiricism is all about evidence based, typically via experimentation, so I'm still confused how you'd go about proving something unprovable (and almost certainly non-existent) by evidence and experiment. I think if you could demonstrate evidence of the supernatural, it wouldn't be supernatural. What empirical observations about life lead you to want to believe that life was designed by a superior intelligence? Is it the eye? (I note that ~60% of the population need glasses.) Is it smallpox, malaria, Leigh syndrome, etc? These don't feel like the result of an especially sophisticated intelligence. Is it the famously circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe's neck? Perhaps it's the the fact that Earth is one of about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe, therefore we must be special?
  - jononomo 3y ago
    What is it about the Rosetta Stone that makes you think there was an intelligence behind it, rather than wind and erosion? Surely you don't believe that science cannot in principle detect the activity of intelligence, do you? If so you would have to dismiss anthropology, forensic science, cryptography, and the SETI project. As for your point that if you can detect the supernatural then it isn't supernatural, well, I almost took the time to address this in my earlier response, but decided to save my breath. Basically, I don't care whether you decide to define God as natural or supernatural -- the point is that we can determine with certainty that life is the product of an intelligence.
    - Jedd 3y ago
      If you could prove the existence of any of the gods, this would be a pretty popular capability with deity advocates the world over - but given no one's come up with such a proof, and you haven't demonstrated one here, I'm inclined to go with the standard view that it's impossible. The Rosetta Stone - aligned with and correlated existing writing / languages with a huge swathe of corroborating material. There was nothing mystical about its content - it was a pretty pedestrian payload, if I recall.
      - jononomo 3y ago
        The existence of life is proof of the existence of God. That's the end of the story. The language of DNA makes the Rosetta Stone look like the scribbles of children. No technology ever conceived by the mind of Man can hold a torch to the complexity and intricacy of the technology of life. We don't even understand it. It is not just a machine, it is a machine to build a machine. It is "code" in the most profound sense of the word. Frankly, it is language. A poet might call it poetry. (And, of course, all human poetry is its by-product.) You referred earlier to "some increasingly gap-reduced hypotheses...", which is just another assumption you've made that is not only unwarranted but at odds with the actual "progress" being made on this front. The more powerful our exploratory tools become, and the more deeply we understand organic chemistry, microbiology, and nanotechnology, the larger the "gaps" appear. In Darwin's day single-celled organisms were assumed to be simple -- just little blobs animated by "life-force". But now we know they are complex machines beyond anything Darwin could have imagined. We are widening the gaps as we learn more, not decreasing them. You are assuming, as is typical, that scientific progress always reduces gaps, and so you conclude that the gaps on this front must be getting reduced. But they are not, and you're merely begging the question again. In fact, a good title for a book on this topic would be "The God of the Gap" because if you want proof of the existence of God, then the existence of life provides it. And not only is the proof clear, but it has been readily apparent to practically all humans since the beginning of time. Only in the last couple hundred years have some midwits arisen who think they have somehow done away with God. Invariably they turn out to merely have a college-level understanding of what science is and how it progresses. By your reasoning, one only needs to assume there is no God in order to conclude there is no God. But reality does not bend to your assumptions, and nor does it bow to your circular conclusions.