How does the concept of immutable natural laws fit into monotheistic religions?

[wuliheron]

Science is not purely physicality, science deals with the demonstrable. If it can't be repeated and demonstrated, it ain't science. This is true for christian scientists as well as the most skeptical scientist. For a christian scientist, what is written in the Bible can be demonstrated repeatedly while for a skeptical scientist quantum mechanics can be demonstrated repeatedly, whether it ultimately has any "physical" cause or not.

 

[dekoi]

And would the "demonstrable" not be physical? If it is repeated and demonstrated, is it not physical?

arildno, your post simply stated that i made an arrogant reply, with no arguments whatsoever. Would it not be much more practical to PM me and tell me that? Is the point of replies to share knowledge with others, or to give titles to specific members?

 

[Nereid]

And would the "demonstrable" not be physical? If it is repeated and demonstrated, is it not physical?

It's an interesting question dekoi!

How does one go about doing research on the subjective experiences of other humans? By asking them to make some kind of report of their experiences while at the same time watching the dials and gauges of the incredibly sophisticated equipment that monitors their brains as they report! (I'm sure you'll agree that humans' subjective experiences are entirely within their brains).

But, to turn your question around, how can convey anything whatsoever about your subjective experiences (e.g. talking with a non-physical entity) except by a physical medium? Indeed, how do I know you even exist, except via my computer screen and the internet? (not to mention any of your ideas!)

Not to belabour the point too much, if you claim there is something 'non-physical', or 'non-demonstratable', the only way you have to tell anyone else about it is through physical means, and then at least some aspects of your 'non-physical' experiences have been captured in physical form, and are amenable to study by the scientific method.

 

[dekoi]

Good point Nereid.

Although you would agree that the essence of metaphysical or philosophical knowledge is still missing -- if you discuss is with someone else via physical means. However, i do understand your point, and it is worth noting.

 

[arildno]

1.Again, you choose not to address the fact that your analogy is simply innaccurate.
2. As for arrogant nonsense, look at your wording concerning science and philosophy respectively.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps philosophy and science were perceived differently 5000 years ago, yet that does not mean they have at all changed their domain of applicability. You have to understand philosophy, as well as science, were discovered by humanity. They were not created by humanity. (And although many will say this is purely subjective, i tend to disagree). Therefore, although our perception of them has changed, their nature has remained the same.

I share Nereid's objection and let me expand with my take on it:

IMO, you fundamentally misunderstand what "science" and "philosophy" are. It seems from what you have said that you might define science as 'the set of laws that governs how our physical universe operates.' But that's wrong. Science is the search for the set of laws that governs how our physical universe operates. Similarly, philosophy is also a method of searching for answers, not a set of answers in itself.

The difference may seem subtle, but its extrordinarily important. It means, among other things, that science didn't even exist in a coherent form before about 500 years ago (or, at least, nowhere near its modern form). Aristotle called his work "natural philosophy" and I consider that accurate: it was philosophy, not science. And where Aristotle's work has been largely discarded as not scientific (not just wrong - Newton was wrong, but we still use his work because it was scientific), a large part of what used to be philosophy has now been completely taken over by science. The reason for this, of course, is that philosophy developed first and for a while, it was the only way to approach a search for knowledge.

This gradual takeover happened quite simply because philosophy gives wrong answers to questions about what is going on in the physical world. And for the parts of philosophy that science hasn't helped solidify, the answers are all subjective.

On this board and others, I have seen a one-way confict between science and philosophy, with philosophers attacking science in an effort to keep it from intruding on the domain of philosophy. But this is futile. As Nereid noted (and I'll expand), virtually anything that can be written down or recorded in any way can be studied scientifically. This doesn't leave a whole lot of room for philosophy.

But I did say its largely a one-way conflict: though a few scientists have delved into those questions that remain unanswerable (why are we here?), most scientists (for now) are content to just let them go and leave them to philosophers.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Three guys who did science in Greek antiquity:

Aristarchus (measured distance of sun and moon)
Eratosthenes (measured size of earth)
Hipparchus (discovered precession of equinoxes)
Archimedes (developed laws of floating bodies)

 

[Locrian]

I have been fearfully mislead concerning the definition of three!



Just playing!

 

[russ_watters]

Three[4] guys who did science in Greek antiquity:

Aristarchus (measured distance of sun and moon)
Eratosthenes (measured size of earth)
Hipparchus (discovered precession of equinoxes)
Archimedes (developed laws of floating bodies)

Fair enough. Would it be fair though, to say that while a few people did practice what can be considered "science" prior to the Renaissance, it didn't really exist as a coherent/preferred methodology for investigating physical phenomena until then?

 

[wuliheron]

And would the "demonstrable" not be physical? If it is repeated and demonstrated, is it not physical?

arildno, your post simply stated that i made an arrogant reply, with no arguments whatsoever. Would it not be much more practical to PM me and tell me that? Is the point of replies to share knowledge with others, or to give titles to specific members?

The demonstrable by definition influences the physical, but need not be physical in and of itself. Again, if quantum mechanics is utterly random and without physical cause, this can be demonstrated but only by observing the physical itself. If light is "pure" energy (whatever that means!) it can only be demonstrated to be pure energy because of its interactions with what we call the physical.

 

[Nereid]

Fair enough. Would it be fair though, to say that while a few people did practice what can be considered "science" prior to the Renaissance, it didn't really exist as a coherent/preferred methodology for investigating physical phenomena until then?

It's possibly more accurate to say that elements of what we call science today can be observed in almost all groups throughout history (and pre-history), whenever enough time and effort is put into the study (by modern anthropologists, ethnobotanists, historians, etc). The discovery and use of plants for medicinal purposes may be an example. The historical and intellectual roots of today's 'science' do include a lot from the Renaissance. What methods were used, how well codified they were, in what domains they were employed, how systematic an approach was used, ... these are all fascinating dimensions to explore in HPS.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Fair enough. Would it be fair though, to say that while a few people did practice what can be considered "science" prior to the Renaissance, it didn't really exist as a coherent/preferred methodology for investigating physical phenomena until then?

I don't think it existed as a coherent methodology until the nineteenth century. Before that experiment was catch-as-catch-can, and really not different in kind from what Archimedes did. Theory was a branch of mathematics.

BTW I used the htrae-retnuoc mrof snamuh drawckab definition of three in my earlier post. ;)

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds reasonable. Different societies leaned in different directions - some more towards religion, some more towards philosophy/science, some with mixtures. This may just be the anthropic principle (it didn't because it didn't), but I wonder why science never coagulated into its current form before modern times? It seems the Greeks were close. I wonder why it didn't happen for them - perhaps its Aristotle's fault...?

I only took one "history of science" course in college and it was really interesting. I'd like to know more...

 

[arildno]

Sounds reasonable. Different societies leaned in different directions - some more towards religion, some more towards philosophy/science, some with mixtures. This may just be the anthropic principle (it didn't because it didn't), but I wonder why science never coagulated into its current form before modern times? It seems the Greeks were close. I wonder why it didn't happen for them - perhaps its Aristotle's fault...?

I only took one "history of science" course in college and it was really interesting. I'd like to know more...

My own pet theory as to why the Greeks and the Romans did not develop science beyond craftmanship (in which they excelled on many areas), is as follows:
1. In order to dispassionately observe the natural world over long periods of time and devising theories about it, it has been, for most times, been necessary to
a) be financially independent.
Sartre once said "philosophy is luxury", it is no less true of scientific research.
b) Be mentally inclined to do so; in particular, not vesting most of your intellectual powers into enhancing your social prestige, for example.

2. Now, the culture in which aristocrats grew up in Greece and Rome was extremely focused on getting the young noblemen into social forums and vying for positions(and to spend their life in service of the fatherland, if you will).
Rich individuals who didn't bother with politics where generally frowned upon, and called 'idiots' in Greek.
Hence, at the outset, it should be expected to be only an extremely tiny group of "gentlemen" who might develop what we call science.
(The seeds of science was certainly present, but more like knowledge within a specific craft, like the smith's knowledge of metals.)

3. So what's different later on?
What happened in Christian medieval culture is rather unique:
The development of monasteries meant that a host of intelligent men lived outside the "normal world", and a "life in meditation" was no longer uniformly looked down upon, but to some extent, admired.
The idea that a "life in meditation" could be a worthy life was thereby born, and hence, in a later, less superstitious age, a larger percentage of "men with means" might regard a life spent in meditation of the natural world as worthwhile than what was true in Greece and Rome
(where the "nobility of meditation" would, in general, have been laughed off as an idea stemming from dreamers and idiots )

 

[Chronos]

The philosophy of art has always about expressing concepts in geometrical terms. Science has followed that path.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The philosophy of art has always about expressing concepts in geometrical terms. Science has followed that path.

That doesn't descibe any philosophy of art that I know about. Do you mean perspective? Not a philosophy but one among many techniques.

And as for science, some physicists have been high on geometry and others couldn't seee it for sour apples. And that only described physics anyway.

 

[arildno]

I think he thought my pet theory was idiotic, and provided his own..
(Pets are usually both cute and simple-minded; it's part of their charm,IMO)

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think he thought my pet theory was idiotic, and provided his own..
(Pets are usually both cute and simple-minded; it's part of their charm,IMO)

My own response to your pet theory is that it only applies to the city-state period of Greek history, and somewhat misrepresents that. The existence of quite a few philosophers in the city-states does not refute, but does stress your theory. In the hellenistic period the situation was different. Large monarchies and empires dominated the political landscape and bureaucracy was well developed. Professional educators, astronomers, and librarians appeared. Eratosthenes and Hipparchus were both in the employ of the Ptolemaic empire.

 

[arildno]

You are certainly right about the Hellenistic period; it was, I believe, the most interesting period in Greece from a strictly scientific point of view.

As to the "classical" city-state period (i.e, the time of Pericles/Socrates), I think Aristophanes' scathing portrayals of philosophers ("The Clouds" in particular) are more representative of what people thought about the philosophers, than whatever the philosophers themselves wanted.
In tenuous connection with this, I believe the sophists, whose primary work was teaching rhetoric (politician-grooming) were much better regarded among the populace than philosophers like Socrates/Plato (that is, I believe, the personal /(real?) reason why Plato disliked them..)

 

[geometer]

How about this for a thought - The scientific method we know today came about as a result of the character of western religious philosophy. The belief in a single God who created the universe with a set of unchanging laws that govern it prompted the search for those laws. (I wrote a paper in college, for a physics class no less, with this as the theme)

 

[arildno]

I never said my pet theory was in any way sufficient; I do think your point has a lot of relevance.
I do think it is somewhat easier within the framework of a monotheistic religion to lend credibility to the idea that natural laws are immutable.
It is, however, a bit too easy to jump to your (and my) conclusion; "the set of unchanging laws" wasn't a particularly prevalent idea in early Christianity.
Which means:
There's a long way still to go..