The hoary edges of science tend to be speculative and sometimes involve “neat ideas in search of an application”. That’s where I think string theory exists. It’s got some interesting ideas and math but there’s work to be done connecting it to observation. As long as they keep trying to move in that direction I think it’s a reasonable, scientific enterprise. But when do you give up? That’s subjective (& often budget-driven). Unproductive offshoots tend to die or get tabled when proponents can’t drum enough interest among other scientists. Or if something better comes along. And sometimes previously abandoned project come back to life with new information. Keep in mind that we’ve invested billions in verifying the Higgs Boson and trying to determine its energy – It’s good that the accelerator is useful for other projects, but still… The amount spent on computer time and chalk for string-theory physicists are like table crumbs in comparison.
Aside: I’m not sure how one justifies being ‘against’ multi-verse or string theory from a Christian theological standpoint. There’s nothing about these notions that stand against Christianity. Maybe it’s the erroneous assumption that it leaves “no role for God”.
As you indicate, it does boil down to how each of us defines evidence. This is why I often describe myself as a skeptic instead of an atheist because it references the method I use to gain knowledge and judge claims instead of simply defining what I do or don’t believe in.
Out of all of the pursuits of knowledge, science probably has the strictest definition of what counts as evidence. The ethos of science is to start with facts that no one can deny, and then see what we can figure out from that starting point. That type of scientific evidence is independent and verifiable.
For me, as a skeptic, I am looking for something more than “because I say so”. I know from personal experience that I can honestly believe in untrue things because I am a fallible human being. I know that other people are just as susceptible to this as I am. This is why I look for verification outside of subjective human experience. Do some people have subjective evidence or personal experiences that they count as evidence? Absolutely. For me, that doesn’t count as evidence, but I don’t see why others need to follow those methods.
Very good. Sadly, far too much “positioning” on the big questions about reality rests on little more than appeals to authority.
I like that expression of intellectual humility. It’s commendable.
Have you considered how the concept of true vs. untrue fits into a working (meaning, “practical” as you have indicated the way you live from a practical standpoint) philosophy of naturalism?
That’s why I don’t find “because the Bible says so” to be that compelling.
It’s really a question of how true vs. untrue fits into any philosophy. Epistemology defines any philosophy.
I don’t personally adopt the philosophy of naturalism, as you would probably define it. I don’t take any axiomic position when it comes to nature or the supernatural. What I do tend to follow is the concept of skepticism, and being fallible I probably follow it inconsistently. If anything, I don’t subscribe to taking a position on absolute truths, and instead lean towards tentative truths, which is a bit of an oxymoron like “partial vacuum”. I view knowledge as a journey instead of a hill to stand on and defend from attackers.
Yes, that is true. However these are not signs for skeptics.
It is notable, also, that there are (I am fairly certain) 7 miracles in John, all of which has deep symbolic significance. They are signs, in this case, because they flow out a deep tradition, with significance appreciated within that context. John saw many miracles, but only selected a tiny subset as signs.
Would this be worth a thread of its own? Others have hinted at wanting to have this type of discussion with atheists, so it might be worth it. The only thing I would worry about is the quality of the discussion, but there seems to be some interest at least.
People have desires in multiple directions. What I meant was “a desire to look and understand,” picking up on what Joshua Swamidass said. Or, to put it differently, a desire to know the truth about reality, whether or not it coincides with what they want to be the truth about reality.
That would be what scientists aspire to. But it would seem to be the antithesis of faith. Anyway, my point was that the evidence of the Resurrection is feeble and would not be sufficient for belief in any impartial person, certainly not enough to counter all the negative evidence.
That’s the kicker, isn’t it? For religion, this is a tough topic to crack because people are emotionally invested in scriptures being true. Objectivity is hard to achieve in these types of discussions.
Possibly. Everyone looks at the world from a point of view. And human nature being what it is, most times people are emotionally invested in their point of view. I would not say that that tendency is limited to religious people.
I think you will find that there are lots of atheists (including myself) who grew up in the church and have been exposed to christianity and christian apologetics. Many of us have no ill feelings towards the church, nor towards those who are still in the church. It just so happens that we just stopped believing. I wouldn’t say that I have no emotions attached to religion since I am a human being, but I certainly don’t hold any negative emotions towards religion. I also think that my story is quite common among atheists.
: