Replies

Thanks very much for your reply. I hope we are not too far apart too continue, I'll see if I can make sense here:

" So as to avoid a debate in epistemology…"

How can we when discussing what we know and how we know it? I'm afraid epistemology is unavoidable in this subject.

"I prefer scientific "truth" to mean that which exists independent of the perceptions or thoughts of humans."

That would work for a definition of objective reality, or the objective component of reality. However, the term "scientific" is either misused here or is changed in definition.

Since this is, I think, key to understanding our differences, let's try to narrow in on it.

First, the problems I see in your definition. "…that which exists independent of the perceptions or thoughts of humans" is not limited to science or what can be proved by science. If, for example, what I would call God exists " independent of the perceptions or thoughts of humans" it would fit your definition, but not necessarily be provable using materialism or sense perceptions alone.Do you see my point here? "Scientific" and "independent of humans" are not necessarily indentical.

Your second definition: ""reality" = the entirety of the world as perceived by, thought of and acting upon humankind" could serve to describe human perceptions and interactions, but "reality" is more than this. Reality is what is real, what actually exists and is true, whether or not humans perceive it or interact with it.

"I pursue science as a means to learn more about the truth of Gods universe."

If by "science" here you mean pure science or the scientific method, then the only truths of God's universe you can know by this means are sensual and material. And, I think your religion likely aspires to more than sense empiricism and materialism.

"I readily accept God as real and true."

Using science alone, why?

Thanks also, for your reasoned responses.

"I'm afraid epistemology is unavoidable in this subject. "

I personally avoid it because to me it is much more assertion than science. We do not know what we do not know.

I like your use of the term "objective reality". If "science" does not deal with exposure of objective realities then it is not science. I do not interchange the words science and philosophy. "Philosophy" may be closer to your definition of science. Philosophy may use science to help build a framework of understanding, but science plays only a partial role. Faith, conjecture and theory also play their parts in philosophy.

I agree of course that "science" is not "independent of humans". Science seeks proofs that cannot be credibly challenged, or proven erroneous, by the best minds and resources available. Thus the limitations are obvious, and human. However, scientific "truths" tend to remain constant whilst human perceptions, faiths and philosophies do not. No matter the belief system of an individual, scientific truths cannot be credibly denied. Thus they exist independent of human beliefs, therefore might be said to exist whether humans perceive them or not. People who do not know or observe scientific principles still abide by precisely the same laws. Did gravity exist before Newton made his famous observations?

Can scientific "truths" be denied merely because they conflict with previously held systems of faith?

(I accept God as real and true.) "...Using science alone, why?"

Who said I used science alone?

God gave humans the power to ask questions. In so doing he simultaneously created human science and human faith. Both have improved the human condition. And neither can exist without the other.