+manthasagittarius I love what R. C. Sproul told his son. "Son," he said, "the fastest and cheapest way to earn a reputation as an intellectual is to adopt the pose of the skeptic."
Good video. People have to get past the idea that we can only know what is testable. We cannot test a variety of things that we claim warranted true belief.
What? I don't even.... If something isn't testable by science then we must engage philosophy. A lack of evidence for something is not the same as something not being testable by science. No one is dismissing the scientific method, just dismissing science as being all knowing.
Because the scientific method is given different descriptions in different textbooks. It's introduced early (by chapter 2 at the latest), but varies greatly in what it is in all the science textbooks I've read.
Well you are wrong. There are extra biblical sources for the existence of Jesus. That he existed is even accepted by skeptics like Bart Ehrman. Also the existence of God is not a question science can answer.
I am no economist, and I do not play one on t.v., however, I am of the opinion of the Austrian School of economics, with such luminaries as Hayek, Von Mises, who were quite on the mark with the reductive take on human conduct. A great book to read, albeit rather a lengthy tome, is Von Mise's "Human Conduct".
Whiff, I could not find the book, "Human Conduct". Did you mean "Human Action"? If so, that is a great book. Another great one is, "Marxism Unmasked: From Delusion to Destruction". Frankly, anything written by Von Mises is a masterpiece in human reasoning. mises.org/library/books?book_type=All&sort_by=title&title=8&author=All&topic=All&austrian_school=All&level=All&page=1 Dan
We might not be able to have the same kind of certainty by studying history with scientific means, but it is not reasonable to think that science can't help at all. To say it's impossible is to deny what science is. Science is the study of what is known and what is observable, To the extent that a historical artifact can be known and understood, science is of great benefit to history. To say that history is some kind of art and nothing else is misleading. Science greatly informs history.
AH! REPRODUCIBLE experiments! I have not seen that concept in connection with public discussion of science for decades! What a breath of fresh air. It is a little daunting to try to accept British sentence form from someone intelligent.
science and religion are not opposite of one another. Science does not exist nor is it practiced in a bubble. There is a philosophy underlying the way science approaches understanding the world just as there is for religious views.
if you are an atheist, you would do well to visit atheism-analyzed. net to challenge your presuppositions. also, a viewing of 'thrice beggars' on youtube would help put our christian objections to your worldview in perspective.
Do you believe in mental illness as disease? How would you, as layperson, in turn, conceive of disease, and, does this notion of diseases of the mind conflate the definition of disease? If you answered unequivocally "yes" to the firstmost question, you may be inclined to embrace those valuations propounded by the scientistic bend of bind, such as, again, the reality of mental illness qua somatic disease. A bit convoluted, no doubt, but I think you might get the gist of my response.
Much of economics is beyond the explanatory pale of mathematical models, especially when considering the complexity with which hundreds of millions of economic transactions take place, every day, say in the U.S. The scientistic mode posits that economics must be studied "scientifically". The book "Freakanomics" was a good examination of the nature of economics as a "science" of human valuation and choice. As such the Free-Market, of freely entered into contractual arrangements, is rational.
/* You also seem to think that science cannot say anything about past events. */ I know it can't. Tell me scientifically what I was going in 1987 at 15:03 ??? And if not, why not? Its obvious with knowledge and limitations of the Empirical Method why no past event can be scientifically known. Its impossible. Let science be science. And why on earth would you want to know something in the past, scientifically. What good would that do for science? It does not help human society one bit.
The burden of proof is NOT only on the shoulders of those who claim God existence. There ARE many philosophical questions about universe's, and species's, purpose that EVERY human should tackle before death. Atheism, and even agnosticism, is a way to exclude such fundamental questions from life. It takes intellect to be skeptic and challenge religion, but it calls for a fundamental ignorance due to scientistic pride to deny the existence of creator.
Absolutes don't exist in history nor in science. Forensic science points a way to find out about past events with different degrees of certainty. We may find out new scientific tools to help with historical inquiries. This is yet to come. New fields of science are of course, not out of the question, so I would never say that science cannot ever have anything to say about history. That seems to be a gross misunderstanding of science and history.
I can't believe what I am reading. "THEREFORE God exists." Are you kidding me? Did you even watched the debate? I think not! He didn't argue like that at all.
" It takes intellect to be skeptic and challenge religion, but it calls for a fundamental ignorance due to scientistic pride to deny the existence of creator." Oh -- so you are setting limits on how far the inquiry can go? I'm afraid you don't have the authority. You can't tell skeptics they are doing legitimate mental work as long as they come back to belief in God's existence. Your approval, I'm sorry to say, is not required any more than your proprietary definitions or demand for "purpose."
It is important to understand where we come from, and why we think the way we do. You might be surprised to realise that most early scientists were in fact extremely religious by today's standards. I mean Charles Darwin was a Pastor for goodness sake! erm, anyway, the point was, to understand your future you must understand your past,
Someone explain to me how this changed from an interesting lecture on debating against scientism, to this particular guys defence of his Christian faith as a scientist?
I don't think that is what he is saying and I don't think ideology is the right term for it either. He's talking about about the different ways in which we can come to know things.
Where are you getting all this ranting from. If you actually watch the video and understand what he is saying it will save you from posting strawman after strawman.
INCREDIBLY long argument from ignorance. Hutchinson says the obvious that science hasn't proven everything, and may not be able to give an explanation for everything, THEREFORE, God exists. He has started me thinking about joining the Church of Scientism.
"especially when considering the complexity..." - yes, complex systems are difficult. We are only starting to break some of the codes that complexity can hide from us. That isn't to say that codes or "laws" aren't there, it just means we don't yet have the capacity to explore the realms. Think of chaos theory. Of course, we don't know what we don't know. But that isn't to say that science wont EVER be able to understand highly complex systems in some future. With some future tech.
This lecture exists because "science" makes religious people NERVOUS. This un settling psychological state is telling in itself: like a man sweating taking a lie detector test.
Hutchinson compares theology to economics, fair enough. Let's look at economics. We know that money exists. We know that many systems exist and they have been used. People go in debt, make profits, live long if they are rich and not as well if poor. We can even touch money if we want. Not so with the "study" of God. God isn't something we can apprehend with our senses. God is very much like a thing that we would LIKE to exist, but have no evidence for. Economics is based on reality.
Well, it would be handy for Hutchinson if science was the same thing as religion. Then, if both are the same, he is more reasonable in choosing one system of belief over the other. Too bad that science and theology just isn't. the same Making a straw man out of science and calling it "scientism" just wont do. Scientism exists, but is a fringe system of belief. Most scientists, including Hutchinson, do not subscribe to scientism. Long straw man argument squashed. Wishful thinking destroyed.
Guess we should accept all supernatural claims appearing in historical accounts (e.g. magical fire-breathing dragon appearances in Chinese history, healing miracles in Indian history). 🤷♂️
I don't believe in spirituality or the new age. I'm as atheist as one can be. Google philosophy. Some would call it splitting hairs but when you really understand you realize every little detail matters.
He said "scientistic pride," coming off the word "scientism," not "scientific pride." Better to know what that is -- a very annoying battle cry in the debate.
"... it calls for a fundamental ignorance due to scientistic pride to deny the existence of creator." - so, anybody who disagrees with you on the topic of the existence of your god suffers from "scientific pride" ... whatever that is. You fail to see the irony. You hold that YOUR position is the only truth and you say that anyone who disagrees is prideful. I'm sure you wont understand that you are making an ironic statement. I give your comment above a complete failz. That would be a 0.
You don't have to choose one over the other. Talk about a strawman. You don't understand what scientism is. It isn't a strawman of science it refers to a philosophy of science.
Your argument is specious and utterly not compelling. Scientific naturalism and supernaturalism are completely at odds and impossible to reconcile, for the following reasons: 1) Scientific naturalism relies upon unfettered inquiry, whereas supernaturalism relies upon authority; 2) Scientific naturalism relies upon empiricism and skepticism, whereas supernaturalism relies upon unsupported, evidence-free faith; 3) Scientific naturalism possesses a universal, global standard for determining whether an assertion is plausible or possibly "true," whereas supernaturalism possess untold tens of thousands of DIFFERENT standards, each at odds with one another, and none based upon verifiable evidence; 4) Scientific naturalism provides powerful, robust, broad, coherent, falsifiable, and predictive explanations, whereas supernaturalism has not provided a single explanation about anything. Now, try as you might to justify your superstition, scientific naturalism and supernaturalism are mutually exclusive, incompatible, and irreconcilable.
"Atheism, and even agnosticism, is a way to exclude such fundamental questions from life." - you don't seem to know what atheism or agnosticism is, then. Yet, you pretend to, in a place where actual atheists and agnostics can see what you think.
This is a gigantic straw man, to allow him to claim things we simply don't know as knowledge. Based on a foundation fallacy, his use of fallacy to assist his arguments is beyond dishonest.
Robin Edwards So knowledge is just a conclusion based on other conclusions? So what "things" did he claim as conclusions that aren't actually conclusions?
1971SuperLead Data is not conclusions. Lying about what someone said when it is written on the previous comment makes you look dishonest. For what reason did you lie about what I said?
Calvin George, you wrote, "A physicist that believes in magic, how silly." Most physicists believe in magic, Calvin; they simply will not admit it. They believe that the universe magically formed from an exploding "cosmic egg", or something like that, via a "big bang" type of event. Christian physicists, on the other hand, such as Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, and more recently, John Harnett and Ian Hutchinson, believe in the miracle of God's creation. Big difference! Dan
+manthasagittarius I love what R. C. Sproul told his son. "Son," he said, "the fastest and cheapest way to earn a reputation as an intellectual is to adopt the pose of the skeptic."
My son, the fastest and cheapest way to remain ignorant is to be non-skeptical.
@@kristenhansen1843 r/iamverysmart
Good video. People have to get past the idea that we can only know what is testable. We cannot test a variety of things that we claim warranted true belief.
We can only know what is testable. We can believe whatever nonsense we want.
Even what is testable is knowing with a grain of belief. What guarantee is there that the laws of nature will hold true tomorrow?
@@kristenhansen1843
Guess we can't know our consciousness then. Or even most feelings
What? I don't even.... If something isn't testable by science then we must engage philosophy. A lack of evidence for something is not the same as something not being testable by science. No one is dismissing the scientific method, just dismissing science as being all knowing.
Thank you for capturing his Powerpoint slides into this video. It really helps.
Because the scientific method is given different descriptions in different textbooks. It's introduced early (by chapter 2 at the latest), but varies greatly in what it is in all the science textbooks I've read.
Well you are wrong. There are extra biblical sources for the existence of Jesus. That he existed is even accepted by skeptics like Bart Ehrman. Also the existence of God is not a question science can answer.
I am no economist, and I do not play one on t.v., however, I am of the opinion of the Austrian School of economics, with such luminaries as Hayek, Von Mises, who were quite on the mark with the reductive take on human conduct. A great book to read, albeit rather a lengthy tome, is Von Mise's "Human Conduct".
Whiff,
I could not find the book, "Human Conduct". Did you mean "Human Action"? If so, that is a great book. Another great one is, "Marxism Unmasked: From Delusion to Destruction".
Frankly, anything written by Von Mises is a masterpiece in human reasoning.
mises.org/library/books?book_type=All&sort_by=title&title=8&author=All&topic=All&austrian_school=All&level=All&page=1
Dan
why? if we are to spend our time comparing different ways of seeing the world, why is it wrong to compare the two?
We might not be able to have the same kind of certainty by studying history with scientific means, but it is not reasonable to think that science can't help at all.
To say it's impossible is to deny what science is. Science is the study of what is known and what is observable, To the extent that a historical artifact can be known and understood, science is of great benefit to history. To say that history is some kind of art and nothing else is misleading. Science greatly informs history.
Well in as such that you can not directly test the past, but make inferences based on scientific tools.
You seem to think that falsifiability is a bad thing.
You also seem to think that science cannot say anything about past events.
How odd.
AH! REPRODUCIBLE experiments! I have not seen that concept in connection with public discussion of science for decades! What a breath of fresh air. It is a little daunting to try to accept British sentence form from someone intelligent.
science and religion are not opposite of one another. Science does not exist nor is it practiced in a bubble. There is a philosophy underlying the way science approaches understanding the world just as there is for religious views.
if you are an atheist, you would do well to visit atheism-analyzed. net to challenge your presuppositions. also, a viewing of 'thrice beggars' on youtube would help put our christian objections to your worldview in perspective.
Do you believe in mental illness as disease? How would you, as layperson, in turn, conceive of disease, and, does this notion of diseases of the mind conflate the definition of disease? If you answered unequivocally "yes" to the firstmost question, you may be inclined to embrace those valuations propounded by the scientistic bend of bind, such as, again, the reality of mental illness qua somatic disease. A bit convoluted, no doubt, but I think you might get the gist of my response.
Really? You are disputing that point. Please google philosophy of science.
Much of economics is beyond the explanatory pale of mathematical models, especially when considering the complexity with which hundreds of millions of economic transactions take place, every day, say in the U.S.
The scientistic mode posits that economics must be studied "scientifically". The book "Freakanomics" was a good examination of the nature of economics as a "science" of human valuation and choice. As such the Free-Market, of freely entered into contractual arrangements, is rational.
You people are unbelievable. No formal education in the sciences what? Its in the title of the video science and faith. Stop trolling.
/* You also seem to think that science cannot say anything about past events. */
I know it can't.
Tell me scientifically what I was going in 1987 at 15:03 ???
And if not, why not?
Its obvious with knowledge and limitations of the Empirical Method why no past event can be scientifically known. Its impossible.
Let science be science.
And why on earth would you want to know something in the past, scientifically. What good would that do for science? It does not help human society one bit.
That should read "mental illness IS disease, not "as".
Blinded by your attachment to science.
The burden of proof is NOT only on the shoulders of those who claim God existence. There ARE many philosophical questions about universe's, and species's, purpose that EVERY human should tackle before death. Atheism, and even agnosticism, is a way to exclude such fundamental questions from life. It takes intellect to be skeptic and challenge religion, but it calls for a fundamental ignorance due to scientistic pride to deny the existence of creator.
I am an atheist who is against scientism
so thats the basis for your argument? That he's a believer?
Absolutes don't exist in history nor in science. Forensic science points a way to find out about past events with different degrees of certainty. We may find out new scientific tools to help with historical inquiries. This is yet to come. New fields of science are of course, not out of the question, so I would never say that science cannot ever have anything to say about history. That seems to be a gross misunderstanding of science and history.
I can't believe what I am reading. "THEREFORE God exists." Are you kidding me? Did you even watched the debate? I think not! He didn't argue like that at all.
" It takes intellect to be skeptic and challenge religion, but it calls for a fundamental ignorance due to scientistic pride to deny the existence of creator."
Oh -- so you are setting limits on how far the inquiry can go? I'm afraid you don't have the authority. You can't tell skeptics they are doing legitimate mental work as long as they come back to belief in God's existence. Your approval, I'm sorry to say, is not required any more than your proprietary definitions or demand for "purpose."
It is important to understand where we come from, and why we think the way we do. You might be surprised to realise that most early scientists were in fact extremely religious by today's standards. I mean Charles Darwin was a Pastor for goodness sake! erm, anyway, the point was, to understand your future you must understand your past,
Someone explain to me how this changed from an interesting lecture on debating against scientism, to this particular guys defence of his Christian faith as a scientist?
I don't think that is what he is saying and I don't think ideology is the right term for it either. He's talking about about the different ways in which we can come to know things.
It is a very common tactic with those with no formal education in any of the sciences .
25:00 scientism denies purpose!
Awesome!
Where are you getting all this ranting from. If you actually watch the video and understand what he is saying it will save you from posting strawman after strawman.
Yes I watched it. At least enough to realize that it wasn't a debate.
INCREDIBLY long argument from ignorance. Hutchinson says the obvious that science hasn't proven everything, and may not be able to give an explanation for everything, THEREFORE, God exists. He has started me thinking about joining the Church of Scientism.
'SCIENTISM'!!! I also am not into Christianity by the way
Amen.
"especially when considering the complexity..."
- yes, complex systems are difficult. We are only starting to break some of the codes that complexity can hide from us. That isn't to say that codes or "laws" aren't there, it just means we don't yet have the capacity to explore the realms. Think of chaos theory.
Of course, we don't know what we don't know. But that isn't to say that science wont EVER be able to understand highly complex systems in some future. With some future tech.
This lecture exists because "science" makes religious people NERVOUS. This un settling psychological state is telling in itself: like a man sweating taking a lie detector test.
As long as you don't put stock in superstition and only in reason and logic then it is just a matter of splitting hairs for me.
Hutchinson compares theology to economics, fair enough. Let's look at economics. We know that money exists. We know that many systems exist and they have been used. People go in debt, make profits, live long if they are rich and not as well if poor. We can even touch money if we want.
Not so with the "study" of God. God isn't something we can apprehend with our senses. God is very much like a thing that we would LIKE to exist, but have no evidence for. Economics is based on reality.
Well, it would be handy for Hutchinson if science was the same thing as religion. Then, if both are the same, he is more reasonable in choosing one system of belief over the other. Too bad that science and theology just isn't. the same Making a straw man out of science and calling it "scientism" just wont do. Scientism exists, but is a fringe system of belief. Most scientists, including Hutchinson, do not subscribe to scientism. Long straw man argument squashed. Wishful thinking destroyed.
Guess we should accept all supernatural claims appearing in historical accounts (e.g. magical fire-breathing dragon appearances in Chinese history, healing miracles in Indian history). 🤷♂️
I don't believe in spirituality or the new age. I'm as atheist as one can be. Google philosophy. Some would call it splitting hairs but when you really understand you realize every little detail matters.
"He said "scientistic pride," coming off the word "scientism"
- yeah, I made a typo
He said "scientistic pride," coming off the word "scientism," not "scientific pride." Better to know what that is -- a very annoying battle cry in the debate.
"Scientism" is a rather cumbersome word to derive from; "scientismistic" or "scientismic" pride might be the best way to express that term.
"... it calls for a fundamental ignorance due to scientistic pride to deny the existence of creator."
- so, anybody who disagrees with you on the topic of the existence of your god suffers from "scientific pride" ... whatever that is. You fail to see the irony. You hold that YOUR position is the only truth and you say that anyone who disagrees is prideful. I'm sure you wont understand that you are making an ironic statement.
I give your comment above a complete failz. That would be a 0.
You don't have to choose one over the other. Talk about a strawman. You don't understand what scientism is. It isn't a strawman of science it refers to a philosophy of science.
How did it take him more than 10 minutes to get through the scientific method that we all learned about in 4th grade?
Your argument is specious and utterly not compelling.
Scientific naturalism and supernaturalism are completely at odds and impossible to reconcile, for the following reasons:
1) Scientific naturalism relies upon unfettered inquiry, whereas supernaturalism relies upon authority;
2) Scientific naturalism relies upon empiricism and skepticism, whereas supernaturalism relies upon unsupported, evidence-free faith;
3) Scientific naturalism possesses a universal, global standard for determining whether an assertion is plausible or possibly "true," whereas supernaturalism possess untold tens of thousands of DIFFERENT standards, each at odds with one another, and none based upon verifiable evidence;
4) Scientific naturalism provides powerful, robust, broad, coherent, falsifiable, and predictive explanations, whereas supernaturalism has not provided a single explanation about anything.
Now, try as you might to justify your superstition, scientific naturalism and supernaturalism are mutually exclusive, incompatible, and irreconcilable.
*fallacious
"Atheism, and even agnosticism, is a way to exclude such fundamental questions from life."
- you don't seem to know what atheism or agnosticism is, then. Yet, you pretend to, in a place where actual atheists and agnostics can see what you think.
This is a gigantic straw man, to allow him to claim things we simply don't know as knowledge. Based on a foundation fallacy, his use of fallacy to assist his arguments is beyond dishonest.
Since we don't really know anything for certain, should we not call anything knowledge?
1971SuperLead Knowledge is our conclusions of the current data, as that data improves, so does our confidence in our knowledge.
Robin Edwards So knowledge is just a conclusion based on other conclusions?
So what "things" did he claim as conclusions that aren't actually conclusions?
1971SuperLead Data is not conclusions. Lying about what someone said when it is written on the previous comment makes you look dishonest.
For what reason did you lie about what I said?
Robin Edwards Apparently you missed the question mark behind my comment.
So, what did he claim as knowledge that we simply don't know?
A physicist that believes in magic, how silly.
Since magic is real (the Placebo effect is one example of it), he isn't silly to accept its reality.
Don't expect people to take you seriously if you think placebo effect is magic.
Calvin George, you wrote, "A physicist that believes in magic, how silly."
Most physicists believe in magic, Calvin; they simply will not admit it. They believe that the universe magically formed from an exploding "cosmic egg", or something like that, via a "big bang" type of event.
Christian physicists, on the other hand, such as Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, and more recently, John Harnett and Ian Hutchinson, believe in the miracle of God's creation. Big difference!
Dan