Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer Audiobook

This post has 15 comments with rating of 5/515

• 
  mklangelo
  September 6th, 2021
  

  There is no science of faith. Science is about knowing. Faith is about pretending you know. They are wholly incompatable.

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  Flyinby
  September 6th, 2021
  

  Thank god, I’ve been waiting for this one…

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  caesar963
  September 6th, 2021
  

  Both science & faith are about seeking. And both are opposed to certainty, which is mistakenly thinking that you know. Beware of certainty, Grasshopper.

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  RPM7
  September 7th, 2021
  

  

  Thank you for this!

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  zombie13
  September 7th, 2021
  

  Science is barely out of its infancy, an these guys claim they know enough to explain religion… That’s funny…

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  apnea
  September 7th, 2021
  

  

  Because they’re terrified of death & the finality of it & the meaninglessness of life.

  The universe is 13.7 billion years old. I am 55 years old. If I’m very lucky, I’ll get another 25-30 years, then I’ll die & the universe will carry on for many billions more. 80 whole years alive. Big F—ing whoop.

  Comparatively speaking, I consider myself lucky because I was born curious. Curiosity is like speed in sports - you can’t teach it. You either have it or you don’t. Much boredom & bellyaching over covid rules & regs. Not me, I just read & listened to more books. Big F—ing whoop. Curiosity, plus living in a country with well funded libraries, plus ABB means I get mega dopamine hits on the cheap. Go ahead, have another ‘lock down’ I could care less. Big F—ing whoop.

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  caesar963
  September 7th, 2021
  

  …more Covid? While not wishing ill on anyone, of course? That wouldn’t be a healthy kind of curiosity at all.

  I don’t think the fear of death & terror of extinction model works. It’s far too reductive. And on a subjective level, I’m fairly indifferent to death as a concept. It’s merely a natural feature of life.

  On the book, any student of philosophy (or law, hopefully, if they’re on their game) could tell you that the premise of the book commits the genetic fallacy. Potential origins alone do not determine validity. It’s necessary to look beyond origin models to merits. But fill yer boots, in any event.

  Moreover, the absolutist, dogmatic assertions which the author routinely makes are ludicrously black and white (& unscientific). The preponderance of “never” & “always” statements reveal the fact that a person is expressing unqualified opinions.

  Also, who honestly gets a “runner’s high” upon entering a church? Architecture students, perhaps…

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  mklangelo
  September 7th, 2021
  

  @Caesar963. Non-Overlapping Magisteria. Science and Religion are interested in completely different areas of inquiry. It’s fact vs Values. They seek what they seek in completely different realms, Grasshopper. One seeks that which can be proven. The other seeks the comfort that strives to calm the fear of the unknown.

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  caesar963
  September 7th, 2021
  

  They’re not both seeking after origins & causation? Whether or not the methods differ? Science grew out of philosophy, after all. The Christian church created the university, wherein scientific speculation & education took place; and many religious were also scientists, so that indicates a heck of a lot of compatibility. This is something we ought to celebrate, rather than resist.

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  mklangelo
  September 7th, 2021
  

  @Caesar963 It doesn’t matter what they’re seeking.

  What matters is the quality of the answer or even its obtainability!

  If I, as a scientist seek to know, for instance, if the atmosphere of a planet contains Helium or Methane, I can perform spectral analysis or design a remote craft to study the atmosphere more closely. I can obtain Data! Might I misinterpret the Data? Of course. But I can learn more and revisit said data and make corrections.

  How do I do that with god?

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  caesar963
  September 8th, 2021
  

  You’re not talking about scientism rather than science, are you? There are certainly other areas of speculation & knowledge. However, we can’t achieve absolute certainty in any of them.

  Just to say, you did maintain that the two were interested in completely different areas of inquiry; then when I said that they both seek after origins & causation - you responded that it doesn’t matter what they’re seeking. That’s merely by way of an aside. Just to show that I’m awake, as it were.

  We do indeed seek information in the immanent universe - of course this is contrasted with the transcendent, by definition. We can’t put any area of metaphysics under the microscope (incl morality, ethics, justice, truth, existence, purpose, etc.) - or do a blood test on the First Cause. Not everything is amenable to an identical method of inquiry. To assert that would be scientism again. Scientism upon stilts.

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  mklangelo
  September 8th, 2021
  

  @Caesar963, You give away a very poor understanding of Empiricism. There is an absolute certainty to be had in Science, based upon repeatability. You are just an apologist for religion. scientism? I’ve never heard of the word. You’re talking in circles. You just dancing by throwing words around.

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  caesar963
  September 8th, 2021
  

  Absolute certainty? That is scientism. You ought to be familiar with the concepts in order to presume to speak in this area. Ignorance of the conceptual framework is not a defence. For inst, I refer you to the definition of absolute.

  Please give examples of where you imagine I’m “talking in circles.” Understanding is possible; please don’t take offence at being contradicted, we should eliminate emotion & abuse out of this.

  On empiricism: empirical research reduces uncertainty, but absolute certainty is unscientific.
  Refer also to the philosophy of science & the work of Karl Popper. Science cannot provide absolutes (although there may exist absolutes). Science is not about certainty. It is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; but it’s not absolutely certain.

  Often, the most fundamental, elementary concepts in science are also the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof. In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything.

  Karl Popper’s foundational work, “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” makes it clear that science cannot “prove” in this manner. This is because it is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven.

  While science cannot prove anything, it can falsify ideas that are currently thought to be true. The test of any real scientific theory is whether or not it can be falsified. This is conceptually crucial, and I would like you to respond on it - although you’re perfectly free to avoid it. Science doesn’t “prove” theories. Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement.

  The reality is that science deals in probabilities, not absolute proofs. We can never be 100% certain that our perception of reality is accurate, and scientific experiments are virtually impossible to totally & completely control. Moreover, science often uses inductive logic, relying on probabilities to draw conclusions. All of this prevents science from ever proving anything with absolute certainty.

  That does not, however, mean that science is untrustworthy, or that you can reject it whenever you like. Science tells us what is most likely true given the current evidence, but it is a sceptical process that always acknowledges the possibility of being wrong.

  Any other position is, as already stated, mere scientism.

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  mklangelo
  September 8th, 2021
  

  @caesar963 Ok. I had to look up “Scientism” “Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. For those of us with less than infinite time on our hands, Epistemoligial knowledge is a branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Ok Great!

  All I’m saying, and I think I’ve made myself quite clear, is that religion and science are working in areas that are not compatible and DON’T overlap. You can’t quantify faith-based metaphysical beliefs. They are unique to the individual.
  Data on the other hand can be evaluated and understood by anyone with the knowledge required. It’s objective.
  This is argument is a bunch of BS. If you’re saying that science can provide no certainty, you a fool.

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer
• 
  caesar963
  September 8th, 2021
  

  Me, a fool?! Ah, now…
  On the parameters of science: this is objectively founded, it’s not about what any of us individually think. The explanation of science & its method which I provided is the standard, objective consensus & definition. Science cannot provide absolute certainty. Theories constantly adapt with new inputs. Science reduces uncertainty - absolute certainty is unscientific. It cannot provide absolutes; it is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge. That does not, and cannot, equate to certainty.

  Scientism implies that scientifically adjudicated knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge. However, this actually cannot be verified by scientific methods. It’s a metaphysical proposition and thus not subject to scientific inquiry.

  As explained, science doesn’t absolutely “prove” theories. Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement.

  Science deals in probabilities (inductive logic), not absolute proofs. Empirical experiments are virtually impossible to absolutely control. Consequently, no absolute certainty.

  Science tells us what is most likely true given the current evidence - it is a sceptical process that always acknowledges the possibility of being wrong. We should all learn from that principle, I think.

  Surely it doesn’t require infinite time to be reasonably aware of the conceptual framework of that which we presume to speak on? Not certain what you mean there.

  It’s unfortunate that you chose not to respond to, and deal with, any of the standard theories & definitions of science presented, such as Popper, falsification, the proof issue, the impossibility of absolute certainty, etc. - but that is entirely your privilege, as I said.

  The scientific method tests within certain narrow parameters & ranges. There is also much that is not amenable to the method.

  So much of it amounts to merely being careful with how you deploy the terminology, and define the concepts (scientific proof, “absolute” certainty, etc.).
  I’ve outlined it this way before: we can be sure about something beyond a reasonable doubt, but not sure beyond all doubt. (If that’s helpful.)

  Also, think of it in this manner: how can it ever be possible to achieve absolute certainty, in any conceivable arena?

  Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith - J. Anderson Thomson, Clare Aukofer

Add a comment