Atheists, quit confusing the two.

[godless dave]

And how do you do this?

By getting answers and testing them against reality.

If you're saying that you need some kind of philosophy of science to do science, I sort of agree, but I don't think it's very important. The same assumptions you have to make to do science are the assumptions you have to make to operate in the world without starving to death or falling into a hole.

And that's besides the point. Sure, epistimology can be said to be a prerequisite for humans to do science. But what's in the realm of science is reality. Epistomology isn't some higher reality, it's just a cognitive thing humans do when starting to think about reality.

 

[kerikiwi]

It's like the difference between studying unicorns, and studying the psychology of people who believe in unicorns.

And the first can't be done

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I really think some of the people in this thread need to brush up on the philosophy of science^WP. Here's a simple exercise: If you were to explain why science is a valid method of investigation, you would have to use something other than science to prove your point (lest you engage in circular reasoning). Since you're not using science, what are you doing?

Science is valid because it is successful.

And the more we learn scientifically about the brain, the more philosophy becomes a biological thought process, not a magical one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That better describes Religious Studies. Theology is the study of the Unknowable -- namely the intentions of divine beings. In other words, completely useless.

How does the "unknowable" differ from what we can study and know about mythology, it's development and consequences among humans?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And the first can't be done

So you are saying it is impossible to study fictional characters? Can't we look at the history and aspects of such characters and draw conclusions they are fictional? Must they exist to be studied using the scientific process or is an examination of human fiction also worthwhile?

 

[dafydd]

It's definitely a field of knowledge - about humans and about literary and oral works created by humans. It contains no knowledge about anything not created by humans. That's why it's inside the realm of science, not outside it.

Does mythology come within the realm of science? I would say not

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And how do you do this?

By looking at examples.

There are a couple rovers on Mars, for example. If you want to say such an example can only be described as successful if one assigns some esoteric value to "success" I'd say you are making no more than a semantic argument.

 

[Trakar]

It's definitely a field of knowledge - about humans and about literary and oral works created by humans. It contains no knowledge about anything not created by humans. That's why it's inside the realm of science, not outside it.

Science is a subset of human experience. It is a simple, empiric observations based, concept of categorization and the rationales connecting those categorizations. The only thing science can say about the divine or supernatural is that those subjects are outside of the conditions and precepts of scientific analysis and consideration, which depend upon the ability to empirically quantify phenomena as a part of the categorization and explanation process.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does mythology come within the realm of science? I would say not

I'm sure there are more than a few anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists who would beg to differ with you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....The only thing science can say about the divine or supernatural is that those subjects are outside of the conditions and precepts of scientific analysis and consideration, which depend upon the ability to empirically quantify phenomena as a part of the categorization and explanation process.

I, for one, reject this paradigm. I find it no more than an excuse to avoid confronting the god believers who are otherwise critical thinkers.

 

[mikeyx]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

Yes, but that way they can insult and deride the cause of the enemy, and dont even get me started on their morbid fixation with cheese..........

 

[mikeyx]

No. Theology regularly trespasses into science. All creation stories in all religions trespass into science. Anything impacting the real world is testable and properly the realm of science.

Moreover a god thing is not necessary to for morality, ethics, and anything else. So, if we don't need to make up a god to tell us how we go here and we don't need a god to tell us what to and not to do what is there left for a god to do? Why be bothered with them?

For the record is the JREF considered officially atheist?

 

[mikeyx]

Indeed. In the end, nothing can actually tell us what is moral or ethical. Its a relative term, arrived at by consensus.

So you do in fact support the creation of the Frankenstein monster? Nice.....

 

[godless dave]

Does mythology come within the realm of science? I would say not

Why not? Isn't mythology created by humans? Aren't humans within the realm of science?

 

[godless dave]

Science is a subset of human experience.

Yes, science is. But what science describes is not.

The only thing science can say about the divine or supernatural is that those subjects are outside of the conditions and precepts of scientific analysis and consideration, which depend upon the ability to empirically quantify phenomena as a part of the categorization and explanation process.

And that means they don't exist.

 

[dafydd]

Why not? Isn't mythology created by humans? Aren't humans within the realm of science?

A moot point. Studying old stories does not seem much of a science to me,but I'll bet you can get a Mickey Mouse degree in it nowadays.

 

[hgc]

How does the "unknowable" differ from what we can study and know about mythology, it's development and consequences among humans?

What I call "unknowable" is completely different from those other things. You're talking about studying human culture, history, etc. Unknowable is stuff that is treated as objective reality, but is entirely the invention of human culture, e.g., gods and their intent, afterlife particulars, lycanthropy, reincarnation, etc.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What I call "unknowable" is completely different from those other things. You're talking about studying human culture, history, etc. Unknowable is stuff that is treated as objective reality, but is entirely the invention of human culture, e.g., gods and their intent, afterlife particulars, lycanthropy, reincarnation, etc.

I know what the theoretical concept of 'unknowable' is. However, I am questioning its existence as contrived by those choosing to use the concept when it is convenient to say, science doesn't go there.

Currently outside the Universe and before the Big Bang are considered outside the realm of science. Science cannot go there so to speak. So I get the concept.

What I don't accept is the application of this concept to the things people want to either believe in or not challenge another's belief in and for which there is also no evidence whatsoever. In fact, there is evidence the things I'm referring to, god beliefs for example, are perfectly within the realm of scientific inquiry. The evidence is clear gods are fictional beings. Science can and does indeed go there.

 

[hgc]

I know what the theoretical concept of 'unknowable' is. However, I am questioning its existence as contrived by those choosing to use the concept when it is convenient to say, science doesn't go there.

Currently outside the Universe and before the Big Bang are considered outside the realm of science. Science cannot go there so to speak. So I get the concept.

What I don't accept is the application of this concept to the things people want to either believe in or not challenge another's belief in and for which there is also no evidence whatsoever. In fact, there is evidence the things I'm referring to, god beliefs for example, are perfectly within the realm of scientific inquiry. The evidence is clear gods are fictional beings. Science can and does indeed go there.

I agree. You're just not understanding what I'm saying.

 

[ddt]

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science.

[...]

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

They are also quite different in the quality of their knowledge.

Science observes the world around us, makes hypotheses, tests these and builds theories - in short, the scientific method. Scientific theories are falsifiable: an observation that goes against the predictions of a theory throws out that theory. Thus, scientific knowledge is built up from concrete evidence.

The "theological method" is more akin to doing mathematics or playing a game of chess.

A mathematical theory posits a set of axioms and derives theorems from them. Mathematical knowledge is certain: it is absolutely certain those theorems are true, given the axioms are true. Of course, we don't know the latter for sure, and therefore we don't really know if those theorems are true. However, many of those mathematical theories are used as models of the world by scientists, who then can use the mathematical theory to derive further laws that describe the world. The mathematician is also free to change the rules of the game: adopt an extra axiom (e.g., Abelian group instead of group) and see what extra theorems he can derive, or drop an axiom (e.g., the Euclidean parallel postulate) and see what remains - much like the FIDE can change the rules of chess when it wants to.

Theology works much the same. Only, instead of a set of self-chosen axioms, the theologian assumes the centuries-old writings of a bunch of goat herders, or a carpenter or a caravan driver as the infallible truth, and tries to derive "knowledge" from that.

There's a huge difference in the "axioms" though: whereas the mathematician carefully assembles a set of axioms, and goes to great pains to prove this set of axioms is sound, i.e., as no built-in contradictions, the "axioms" of the theologian - those centuries-old writings in a dead language - are inherently contradictory. And as anyone who aced their Logic 101 course can cite: ex falso sequitur quodlibet. Thus, theological "knowledge" is utterly worthless, as you can derive literally anything you want from the confused, contradictory writings in the Tanakh, the Bible or the Quran.

(if there's a non-Abrahamic religion for which this does not hold, I'm open to hearing that).