Hmmmmmm… last time I checked in on philosophy it was in the process of extinguishing itself as thoroughly as possible to the point where, like Alice's Cheshire Cat, only its weird smile remained visible:
Posted on 07/13/2018 11:19:47 AM PDT by fishtank
I can't speak for Hume, but every definition of God I've ever seen puts Him outside and above nature, the Creator and controller of nature, God is neither nature nor controlled by nature.
If Hume really did argue differently, then he was simply wrong about it.
reasonisfaith: "Take note—the laws of nature are a god for the religion of naturalism.
This religion includes evolutionism."
Sure, you can repeat that claim as often as you like, but it wasn't true the first time and constant repetition won't make it more true.
The "laws of nature" are surely God's laws, but they are not God by any definition, especially to atheists who deny any supernatural or extra-natural being.
As for evolution, many consider it simply one possible tool in God's creative tool box, but very likely not His only tool.
Sure, in the sense that atheism itself is a form of religion.
But almost every mind is also highly rational and that is what science depends on.
I've never deeply explored Hume's thinking and your suggestions here make me glad I didn't waste time on him.
Hmmmmmm… last time I checked in on philosophy it was in the process of extinguishing itself as thoroughly as possible to the point where, like Alice's Cheshire Cat, only its weird smile remained visible:
Not really.
Basic working science, as opposed to highfalutin' philosophical science, basic science is pretty non-philosophical and amounts to simply our best efforts to learn how things work.
There are even technical terms for it which you might know: methodological naturalism (working science) versus philosophical naturalism (atheism).
Sorry, but no science is possible without data, indeed you might even say that science without data is just philosophy, but maybe that's too mean? ;-)
So science begins with observations / data / facts and attempts to explain what it sees -- what, how, why, etc.
Brain-storming & speculations first -- let's make a list of what it might be, then whittle the list down by throwing out what's impossible and restating what's possible as falsifiable hypotheses, etc., etc.
reasonisfaith: "And the identification of an hypothesis involves the context of a preexisting belief system."
In a genuine brainstorming speculation phase any and all potential hypotheses get listed & evaluated, including testing of ones which look promising.
Indeed the stimulus for the process is very often precisely because a "preexisting belief system" (i.e., scientific theory) was challenged by new data.
And the general truth is that scientists live & hope for such situations because its only time they truly get to do their science "thing".
A man referred to as the father of empirical science, Sir Francis Bacon, is quoted as follows:
“Man prefers to believe that which he prefers to be true.”
Not what’s true, but what he prefers to be true.
This is why we have the double blind aspect in research.
All I meant was if you have a brain, you have religion.
I think any good scientist would tell you they hope for the day when they discover a genuine, verified & confirmed anomaly -- not to their own pet theory, of course, but preferably to the theory of some old professor they particularly disliked in school.
Or maybe to the theory of a rival for the prettiest girl in class.
That's where true anomalies become not just challenging, but fun.
Point is, if you think of science as nothing more than self-protection or self-aggrandizement, well... it shouldn't be and in many, many cases is not.
Sure, but almost every brain is also capable of rational thought and that is what science depends on.
I’m merely pointing out that in the formation of human beliefs, passion always precedes intellect.
We believe what we want to be true, then we rationalize it. There is some room to get around this in the scientific method, such as with the double blind protocol. But one of our greatest weaknesses is the inclination to believe rational thinking is the rule.
Sure, but only up to a point -- the point where "cognitive dissonance" becomes intolerable and we have to rethink what we thought was true.
Of course some are more easily moved by cognitive dissonance than others with the results that debates are possible and outcome unpredictable.
You make a good point about cognitive dissonance—you advance our discussion in the right direction.
I would say the problem with cognitive dissonance is it’s more of a comfort stabilizer than a truth detector.
Careful study of a new anomaly and how it might affect previous understandings is one of the purposes of science, and I suspect a high-point in many scientific careers.
A good example of cognitive dissonance is if I encounter evidence supporting the truth of evolution, against the background of my basic desire that evolution be false.
Another good example of cognitive dissonance is if you encounter evidence refuting the truth of evolution, contradicting your wish that evolution be true.
In scientific terms there's no "truth" in evolution because the word "truth" is reserved for philosophy and religion.
There is also no "proof" of theories since "proof" is reserved for courts of law, mathematical theorems and, of course, whiskey.
Instead, what can be observed is called "fact" and any hypothesis is confirmed or falsified by its ability (or lack of) to predict previously unknown results.
So consider some very strongly confirmed theories, such as gravity.
What happens when we hear of supposed UFOs said to defy gravity?
Do we imagine suddenly that the laws of gravity have been repealed, or don't work, or are now falsified?
Maybe, but first don't we question if those alleged sightings are really what was claimed?
How certain are we that those fuzzy photos really are Koozbanean Fazoobs and not just evolving Phoobs?
“In scientific terms there’s no ‘truth’ in evolution because the word ‘truth’ is reserved for philosophy and religion.”
Is your above comment true?
Of course, strictly speaking science is all about just two things: observations (aka "facts") and explanations (aka "hypotheses").
If I see a UFO defying gravity that's an observation, but it does not become fact until it can be very carefully confirmed scientifically.
Explanations begin as brain-storming a list of potential explanations, followed by weeding out the impossible ones and stating others in the form of hypotheses.
A scientific hypothesis is a falsifiable explanation, so the next step is to attempt to falsify it.
Every failed attempt to falsify is called a confirmation and strongly confirmed hypotheses can be accepted as "theories".
Theories are sometimes combined to make what's called a "standard model".
And that's it!
That's all there is in science.
Notice what words are missing: "belief", "faith", "truth", "proof", "doctrine", "creed", "philosophy" -- none of that.
Strictly speaking, every confirmed theory, without exception, can still be falsified if or when new data or better explanations are confirmed.
And that happens all the time -- I've said most real scientists live in hope of someday finding a genuine confirmed anomaly, something which doesn't fit their standard model and may force a rethinking and new hypotheses.
For an example, consider Fred Hoyle's "steady state" cosmology which was thought viable when I was young.
But it's been falsified so many times that Big Bang now, so to speak: reigns supreme.
Still, once in a while you'll see a report of something which doesn't seem to fit the Big Bang model and we have to wonder then if old Fred Hoyle isn't laughing in his grave? ;-)
Point is: none of this is about "truth" or "belief" or "faith", etc.
Strictly speaking, science only accepts a particular theory temporarily, until something better is discovered.
Clear?
But when I ask whether something is true or not, you know exactly what I mean.
Meaning is what’s important, not the symbols used to convey meaning.
So we’re back to cognitive dissonance, and how it isn’t a truth detector.
If a scientist encounters evidence disproving his favorite hypothesis, he will experience cognitive dissonance. In many cases, this will cause him to reject the evidence.
This is why Bacon said we believe what we prefer to be true, and it’s the reason we use the double blind method
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.