Thanks for sharing. All I can respond is keep searching for truth. I'll do the same. If one of the religions is true and can be found, then philosophy, being the search for truth, will sooner or later find it. — A Christian Philosophy

FWIW, my "search for truth" was never emotionally motivated (e.g. to find a warm & welcoming religious community to replace the ultra-conservative clique I was born into)*1. Instead, it was simply a dispassionate (agape) love of Wisdom (i.e. philosophy).

My current view is that all religions are "true" for people of faith, but are "false" for those outside the faith community. So, my current "church" is a community of one not-so-true believer. Hence, I'm standing up here alone, preaching to the invisible choir. I don't recommend it for die-hard truth-seekers. :joke:

*1. That's only partly true. After I got out of the Navy, I started going to a Unity church. But that was mostly to meet "nice" girls, and only partly out of curiosity about the way-liberal Unitarian off-shoot of the Christian religion. They had a sort of Pagan/New Agey truish Truth, but it wasn't my kind of truth. The girls were nice though.

Anyone without a dogmatic mindeset who bothers to read both of the links I've provided will learn that the idea of, what Fred Hoyle derisively called, the "Big Bang" germinated a number of times in the half-millennia or so before Fr. Lemaître's conjecture. There's nothing "obscure" in my post to the philosophically and scientifically literate. I'd go an even a further step way back to a millenium before the Christian hegemony (beginning with the Dark Ages) and point out that Democritus speculates this (in sum): the universe came to be as a complex assembly of swirling atoms that is also disassembling and possibly recombing into other universes (c5th century BCE). Never heard of Democritus? or atomic cosmogenesis? or classical atomism? :lol:

so you think you can deduce transubstantiation from the cogito? — Banno

No - I believe this topic is purely theological, that is, it can only be derived based on divine revelations. That said, the philosopher may be able to uncover other christian claims (e.g. the golden rule of ethics) and eventually conclude that the bible is a trustworthy source. I explain this in my video #3. If interested, you can search for the following title in YouTube (the forum moderators don't like me posting my video links):

Philosophy vs Theology | A Christian Philosophy - Part #3

But a faithful Christian starts of with the truth. So the philosophy must be disingenuous. — Banno

The two are not incompatible. You may act as a christian, and one the side, search for truth starting from scratch. In fact, the christian is encouraged to search for truth. "Seek and you shall find".

By the way, that was a good joke.

Well, there's nothing in this to dissuade me form the view that the result will be disingenuous confirmation bias - like where you suggest that the philosopher may be able to uncover other christian claims such as the golden rule of ethics.

I don't see the point of your searching for a black cat you have already found.

Hello.

Some philosopher's would already say that Christianity has been found inadequate: case closed. — Tom Storm

Well that depends on their arguments.

What would it mean to say Christianity is true? Is this a philosophical question or a historical/scientific one? Which version of Christianity would you want tested in this way? — Tom Storm

The christian claims: e.g. that God exists; that Christ is God; that man has a soul; that good and evil are objective; etc.

I don't understand what you're saying. :blush: Can you elaborate...please? — Agent Smith

I'll try. Topics may be one of the following three: (1) rationally verifiable (using reason alone), (2) empirically verifiable (observable or detectable), or (3) not verifiable at all.

Example of (1): "Nothing is true" is a self-contradiction, therefore "Some things are true" is necessarily true. This is verified without the need for empirical evidence.
Example of (2): "Whether there is methane on Mars". Best to go and collect empirical evidence.
Example of (3): "Whether there exist beings which we cannot detect or interact with in any ways". This seems unverifiable either rationally or empirically, and thus it is superfluous.

Scientism believes in (2) and correctly rejects (3), but omits (1).

Danke for the explanation.

Do you see any connection between 1 & 3?

Sure it can be defended – it works. — 180 Proof

To clarify, I am not questioning the validity of the scientific method - it's a correct method. But my point is that the scientific method (which validates by empirical verification) cannot be validated by empirical verification, because it is circular. X cannot be used to prove x. And to claim that "it works" is to say that the scientific method has been verified empirically to work.

Non sequitur. "Verification" applies to propositions (i.e. claims) As I've pointed out, "the scientific method" is a an archive of procedural practices of unparalleled fecundity and not a proposition.

:up:

To say the scientific method works simply means it has produced many (scientific) theories that do a good job of a) explaining phenomena and b) predicting phenomena, whatever these phenomena are.

The christian claims: e.g. that God exists; that Christ is God; that man has a soul; that good and evil are objective; etc. — A Christian Philosophy

Not always. I've met many Christians who do not think Christ was identical to God. Some do not believe the Gospels to be accurate accounts. But more importantly, you've left things vague. Christian beliefs are all over the shop. Some think 'fags should die by fire'; others embrace the rainbow flag. Some condemn gay marriage; some support it. Some think capital punishment is anathema; other support it. Some think women should be priests; some advocate misogyny. Some think it's god's blessing to be rich; others believe money should be given away. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the head of the KKK both identify as Christian and accept that good and evil are objective. Christianity means little until the specific beliefs are described

It is simple induction (or sometimes called abduction): inference to the most reasonable or probable explanation. E.g. We do not know with certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet it is very reasonable given our experience of the world up to now.

Keep in mind you could always remain agnostic. But let's say we had to choose. Then we should assume that the unverifiable claim is true, because the fact that there is a precedence for truth and not falsehood is a sufficient reason to tip the scale.

But also, the argument gets stronger with more verifiable claims; which better represents the case for the Christian claims. — A Christian Philosophy

Despite the lack of intellectual honesty of your last response, I'll give it one more try.

Has it not occurred to you that most posters on a philosophy forum are well acquainted with inductive reasoning? Your understanding seems to be very superficial and simplistic. You don't seem to understand that inductive reasoning has its limitations. You don't seem to understand that its usefulness is in drawing general conclusions about a given subject from specific observations about that very same subject. You also don't seem to understand that it works best when dealing with concrete subjects. It is less reliable when dealing with in the abstract. The more abstract, the less reliable. Anyone who understands these things is not going to buy your argument that it is reasonable to believe unverifiable claims on the strength of verifiable claims. Unverifiable claims are not only NOT the same subject as verifiable claims, the subject is far too abstract for it to be reliable.

Some years ago, a friend of mine used a similar argument for reincarnation: The verifiable claims of Buddhism are true, therefore it is reasonable to believe that reincarnation is true. Are you buying? Why or why not?

I don't see the point of your searching for a black cat you have already found. — Banno

If we demonstrate that the black cat is real, then we should believe it is real. What does it matter that we have "already found it" beforehand?

I don't believe I do. What do you have in mind?

I don't believe I do. What do you have in mind? — A Christian Philosophy

Huh?

"Verification" applies to propositions (i.e. claims) As I've pointed out, "the scientific method" is a an archive of procedural practices of unparalleled fecundity and not a proposition. — 180 Proof

I don't believe this distinction works. Propositions refer to things; things such as the scientific method. In other words, "the scientific method is a valid method" is a proposition that can be verified.

To say the scientific method works simply means it has produced many (scientific) theories that do a good job of a) explaining phenomena and b) predicting phenomena, whatever these phenomena are. — Agent Smith

I understand that. But the original point was that a method cannot be used to defend itself. As an example, imagine someone who rejects the validity of the scientific method on the premise that observations are not valid evidence (e.g. they are false perceptions). You could not defend the scientific method by pointing to phenomena or other observations, since he does not believe that observations are valid evidence.

I've met many Christians who do not think Christ was identical to God. — Tom Storm

That one in particular seems odd to me. "Christian" has the word "Christ" in it haha. The others you have listed may indeed be disputed. That's fine; I think what I have listed originally is at the core of all Christian branches. If philosophy validates these claims, Christianity is off to a good start.

I understand that. But the original point was that a method cannot be used to defend itself. As an example, imagine someone who rejects the validity of the scientific method on the premise that observations are not valid evidence (e.g. they are false perceptions). You could not defend the scientific method by pointing to phenomena or other observations, since he does not believe that observations are valid evidence. — A Christian Philosophy

Ah! You're taking this to the next level (of skepticism). Setting aside hyperbolic skepticism for the moment, do you agree that by works, we mean that insofar as the scientific method is at stake we can explain & predict phenomena amazingly accurately?

You're moving the goalposts. A common tell for all to see that you realize you've been found out either not knowing what you're talking about or disingenously holding on to falsehoods / nonsense. :roll:

(my emphasis)

Sure it can be defended – it works. — 180 Proof

But my point is that the scientific method (which validates by empirical verification) cannot be validated by empirical verification, because it is circular. X cannot be used to prove x. And to claim that "it works" is to say that the scientific method has been verified empirically to work. — A Christian Philosophy

But then the methodologies are sort of self-verifying because of successful models. The success stories are the evidence. Otherwise the methodologies (and science) would have been thrown out.

Scientific methodologies, being evidence-driven, consist of (provisional, tentative) models converging on accumulating domain-specific evidence/observations. The methodologies are activities, observations, evidence collection, experiments, protocols being run, all that. A reasonably stable, falsifiable model could be promoted to a theory.

The methodologies themselves can be verified by the successes. Presumably you're using some while posting here (near-realtime worldwide communication over the Internet using complex electronic devices, electricity in your home). Other examples could be GPS helping us navigate (also uses relativity), cholera control, clean water, exploring Mars with rovers, fair treatments of schizophrenia, the insulin story (type 1 diabetes no longer a death sentence), helping paralysed to talk and move, ... Such like can serve as evidence justifying the methodologies (technically not proof), or they'd been ditched. Science works.

Anyway, I'd say philosophy spawned science, after it had grown substantially, but that goes way back.

Just a take on this : Philosophy is the strive to think and speek good.

An absolutely vital part of any scientific project as well.

The “observe” thing in science is not aimlessly looking at whatever. When clever guys, as the mapping out of the world progressed, saw how well Brazil fitted into West Africa they started thinking.

Don’t really, as a non Academic know what Platonism is, but when I read the dialogues, those guys weren’t stupid, they just didn’t have the tools we have now. I see no direct contradiction with science, on the contrary they were well on the track. They used what they had and did a good job with it. And picking up where they started, it wasnt too long before philosophers like Bacon sent nerdier thinkers on the track to knowledge. Nerds are super useful.

Where’s that video btw?

:up:

Science works. — jorndoe

.
The scientific method can be used to create useful technologies.
Is that what you mean?

I would say, "Imagination works".
My view is that science doesn't create, it only verifies and recreates.

Religion is imagination without verification.

Science/engineering is imagination + verification.

Religion is imagination without verification. — Yohan

:up: :clap: I couldn't have said it better.

Science from DICTIONARY.COM:
"Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

From Wikipedia:
"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

From Science Council (https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/):
"Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."

Now, about the list of sciences that is presented:

- Mathematics is generally not considered a science, although some do consider it as such. It is actually a field of knowledge including systematic treatment of magnitudes (numbers), relationships (formulas) and related forms, shapes and structures (geometry. However, it is used and is essential in Science.
- Logic is not a science. It is a system and principles of reasoning. It is used in Math and it is essential in Philosophy.
- Metaphysics a not a science. It is a branch of philosophy. (Otherwise, Philosophy itself would belong in part to science!)
- Epistemology is not a science. It is a branch of philosophy.
- Ethics is not a science. It is a system, rules and principles of human conduct. It is also a branch of philosophy.

The 10 main branches of science from https://leverageedu.com:
Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Zoology, Astronomy, Medicine, Astrophysics, Earth Sciences

***

This is a general view and summarizing of science and its branches. There are certainly other views and I, myself do not stick to it. My main point is that 4 members of the list presented in the topic as "sciences" certainly do not belong there and one is questionable at best. On the other hand, a lot of important and known sciences are missing from the list as I indicated above. In short, the list is ill-prepared.

As for the difference between Science and Philosophy as well as the boundaries, area of knowledge, purpose and responsibilities of each have long been determined and the history of their union and separation is well known. So, I believe it is useless to come back every now and then to this subject.

On the other hand, we can talk --and this is quite interesting and promising-- about how science can and is already used in philosophy. (Not the other way around.)

The scientific method can be used to create useful technologies.
Is that what you mean? — Yohan

Don't think that quite captures it. (Unless you're using the word in an unusually broad sense?)
Check examples; science has also done away with bloodletting and phlogiston ...

I don't believe I do. What do you have in mind?
— A Christian Philosophy

Huh? — Agent Smith

I was responding to the following post:

Danke for the explanation. Do you see any connection between 1 & 3? — Agent Smith

But I think we are passed that now :blush:. We can just focus on the other conversation.

do you agree that by works, we mean that insofar as the scientific method is at stake we can explain & predict phenomena amazingly accurately? — Agent Smith

I agree, and that's because there is empirical evidence that it works. I'll wait and see where you are going with this, but I worry we will run into circular reasoning again.

You're moving the goalposts. — 180 Proof

Could you show me where in my statements I am moving the goalpost?