Lazy in a Non-Science Forum: Frame of Reference for Science and the Distinction of Religion

Cha • 3 days ago Every methodology like Science has to to have a 'Reference'. And that reference cannot come from science itself. In that case, it will be a circular logic sort of thing and therefore completely invalid. Some things are axiomatic or self evident like Pythagorean principle etc. These are starting point or reference point. Obviously these cannot be proved by science.

Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Cha • 2 days ago • edited Good points for starters. By the term "Reference" you mean more precisely a "Frame of Reference." A key one historically has been and is Thomas of Aquinas´ clarification of Aristotle´s abandoned First Cause argument. He noticed that causes and effects exist by observation and induction, and that we can deduce and interpolate back to a First Cause. However, he assumed that the Universe is "eternal," which led him to believe that there was no First Cause. He assumed a sustaining Unmoved Mover, instead. There is more in Thomas of Aquinas´ own larger context, all in Jesus´ legacy, but that is a key component. Stan Jaki did a comparative study among various cultures. "Obviously" is a term that is rarely sufficient. The issue of circularity has been raised with regard to God by scientific materialists. The metaphysical religious philosophical analysis begun with Thomas of Aquinas extending Aristotle with WL Craig´s modern Kalam arguments considers God as Uncaused, or self-caused. The religious argument can draw from the visionary assertion of the Bible´s "I am that I am" and Genesis´ Creation account. Craig´s post-Thomistic philosophical account can be supplemented with Systems Theory epistemology. Emergentism demonstrates how new orders of reality have emerged in phenomena, with Christian-derived University-based knowledge domains reflecting the complexity of phenomena, and the discontinuity of emergence. Emergence is a discontinuous shift that creates an alteration on continuity. Thus, living organisms with 3rd order emergence are carrying heritable information and alter their physical environments, as photosynthetic algae did with oxygen, and human trans-tool symbolic culture leveraged puny human hunting capacities to shift the eco-niche body size-defense advantages of mega-mammals and make it instead a disadvantage. Then came the atomic bomb, for another. And UN human rights and sustainability, for yet another. Emergentism thus helps reason around the implication that God is the First Cause existing at a Higher Order of Reality. God, thus, can be described at a different Order of Reality, which clarifies terms like "Absolute Ground of Being" or "Ultimate Reality." Understanding a Higher Order based on Emergentism is yet another distinction, and a key one. As for things that are "self-evident," I checked Pythagorean math, and off hand get reminded that Euclid´s postulates are a primary reference in geometric math. The Pythagorean theorem itself is "derived from the axioms of Euclidean geometry." Mathematics has a metaphysical philosophical issue in issues like numbers, I recall. A quick check shows that Mathematical Platonism holds: "The central idea of Platonism is this: mathematical objects exist independent of our conception of them. Without minds, numbers would still be “out there”." The numbers, like 2, are "abstract objects," and their existence doesn´t require physicality. Steve Patterson opposes this by limiting the reality of numbers to human concepts. That means that he is a materialist, and doesn´t address the Kalam Cosmological argument perspective. http://steve-patterson.com/... Patterson´s discussion of logic asserts it as necessary, and he defines it as the "inescapable rules of existence." He goes so far as to say, "Logic is not some powerful being; it isn’t magical. It simply is, and it couldn’t be otherwise." He also considers, "Logic isn’t a material. It isn’t energy or particles. You might phrase it another way: Logic is simply the way things must be." About God, he observes, "An omnipotent God could not “break” the laws of logic, because they are not something that can be broken. If God exists, then he exists, and he certainly doesn’t not-exist. Thus, he too is bound by the laws of logic. (But again, that doesn’t mean an omnipotent God has some chains around him keeping him in check. Being all-powerful means “being able to do everything which can be done” – but he couldn’t “do something which can’t be done”, because those things can’t be done!) Patterson thus distinguishes himself from a materialist. There are implications for the alignment of "an omnipotent God" and "logic" in the phrase "a being able to do everything which can be done." With various arguments like WL Craig´s collection of six or so arguments for the Existence of God (through Jesus), the existence of a principle of existence begs the question, "Where did it come from?" which refers to Craig´s arguments and an additional one I call the Historical Sociological argument in Jesus´ legacy. Geoff Haselhurst discusses how Euclid´s axioms are not actually real, given relativity and the lack of absolutely rigid objects, " He observes, "The subtlety of the concept of space was enhanced by the discovery that there exist no completely rigid bodies. All bodies are elastically deformable and alter in volume with change in temperature. Thus Euclid's Geometry of straight lines, perfect spheres, etc. is axiomatic rather than real. " GH goes on to assert, "In Albert Einstein's Relativity we show that Pythagoras' Theorem is a fundamental physical truth that both confirms that matter interacts spherically with other matter at-a-distance in Space, and explains why Albert Einstein was able to use Pythagoras' Theorem as the foundation (metric equations) for his Theory of Relativity. " https://www.spaceandmotion.... And all of that involves WL Craig´s own specialty in philosophy, Biologist cum philosopher of science M Pigliucci makes the clear issue against L Krauss´ assertion that "Philosophy is a kind of science." Pigliucci cites it, saying, "He´s got it exactly backwards." That is, science is a kind of philosophy. Thus, your point of "Reference" is clearer as the term "Frame of Reference," which is key for understanding science itself, and that is fundamentally modern philosophy, which is a Christian transformation of ancient Greek and eclectic elements. WL Craig´s list raises a number of interesting areas to be considered, all of which involve the concept of "presuppositions" and involve the manner in which Christians have developed modern philosophy, now into University-based UN human rights pluralism and sustainability. • Edit • Reply • Share › Avatar Chakra greenpeaceRdale1844coop • 12 hours ago Yes, 'frame of reference' is the proper word. I am quite lazy when it comes to typing..... and this is more of non-science forum. • Reply • Share › − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Chakra • 3 minutes ago • edited I find your answer an interesting example of scientific materialism. Your imprecise language was actually incorrect, in the first place. Your conduct is presumptuous, since I performed an important act of consideration in correcting your mistake. Thirdly, your apparent overvaluation of "science" itself is ideological and fallacious, and even treats science as "supreme" with what is then a form of "supremacism," following a common enough kind of practice. You have allowed yourself to be sorely misled. I recall that you have shared about having engaged in spiritual practice in the past. It appears, however, that you haven´t adequately reconciled their interrelatedness with science, social studies, and the humanities. The philosophy of religion and Comparative Religious Studies fits in there, despite the presumptive God´s position as transcendental and omnipotent lawful Creator of the Universe. In fact, a key factor in that is the value of the individual. Heinrich Rickert clarified that difference between the natural scientific disciplines which generalize and subordinate individualized reality to case example status and try to reduce values to objectification on the one hand, and historical social disciplines on the other which validate values and individualizing. I point out frequently enough around here that "science" is a popularized term at best, and at worst a pretentious technophilic term that tries to use scientific philosophy´s established and accumulated knowledge to substitute mistakenly as "truth" and "reality." It also tries to sustain that appearance of "truth" and "reality" as superior to the thoughtful human practice of diversified philosophy that has used empiricism as its supplement as well, and multiple methodologies, to achieve the broad spectrum of University-based scholarship. Normally, that variety is called the Liberal Arts, but it deserves to be called Multidisciplinary Philosophy. I get the impression that you may be implicitly communicating something with your term "lazy," given other existing attitudes towards the "non-sciences," or better, alternative forms of philosophical scholarship. "Lazy" is a judgmental and supremacist attitude, a form of ad hom fallacy, that is itself typical of scientific materialists you are being influenced by. I might recommend exploring the creative arts to get a feel how imprecision and impressionism can be contructively useful. In therapeutic psychology, emotional awareness methodology along with belief-thought content awareness also. John Bradshaw´s work on the dysfunctional family and the inner child in books like Homecoming can inspire a dynamic and fruitful process. Myself, I studied Bio Anthropology in college in which the evolution of speech and religion were burgeoning interests of mine. In rejecting sociology at that time, I had been introduced to the emergentist gap that is a challenge to articulate. From biology to psychological subdisciplines to social psychology to sociology, anthropology, and microsociology provides examples of the social empirical phenomena and terminologies that you fail to grasp still, it appears. It is the clarity of social reality and its phenomena, and the clarity of an observer´s interpretive role, that would seem able to overcome the gap caused by scientific materialism´s own overspecialization and mistaken understanding of scientific philosophy and the importance of individuals at the same time. Your error and attitude are a fascinating example of mildly dysfunctional scientific materialism. Perhaps my comment can alert you to a richer and more rewarding perspective in which the very roots of scientific philosophy in empirical and other philosophical disciplines inspire an approach that can deal with the real world challenges of human rights violations, profiteering, and unsustainable lifestyles and industrial policies.