EPTOn May 15 2009 22:29 ManBearPig wrote:
If you mean to say that one can make a sensible, clear-cut division between metaphysics and science I have to disagree. Science is filled with metaphysical assumptions. Saying that science is only concerned with the empirical and doesn't have anything to do theorizing at a higher level is quite naive.
Oh and I would just like to say that the 'you can't prove or disprove god's existence' argument is often used in a kind of ignorant way. Strictly speaking it is, of course, very true, but you can't just ignore the aspect of probability. You can say exactly the same thing about ANYTHING. Even if you can't disprove god's existence, you can still dismiss it because it does not compute with current scientific views of the universe and it does a worse job at explaining everything.
If you mean to say that one can make a sensible, clear-cut division between metaphysics and science I have to disagree. Science is filled with metaphysical assumptions. Saying that science is only concerned with the empirical and doesn't have anything to do theorizing at a higher level is quite naive.
Oh and I would just like to say that the 'you can't prove or disprove god's existence' argument is often used in a kind of ignorant way. Strictly speaking it is, of course, very true, but you can't just ignore the aspect of probability. You can say exactly the same thing about ANYTHING. Even if you can't disprove god's existence, you can still dismiss it because it does not compute with current scientific views of the universe and it does a worse job at explaining everything.
I didn't say that a clear cut division can be made between the phenomenal and physical right now. All I said was that our understanding of the "supernatural" is not capable of being explained empirically, and that our understanding of the "natural" is far from being complete.
There's a difference between phenomenalism and metaphysics, btw, though. They don't mean the same thing, and they don't entail each other necessarily. Phenomenalism is basically things that cannot be reduced physically. Metaphysics refers somewhat loosely to what is first, or origin. Of course science seeks to answer those questions, but again, they are bound by the physical universe...the realm of material objects.
The probability of a god existing or not existing is irrelevant when your understanding of the physical world is far from being complete. It's arrogant to assume that we're at a point where we can make such a call, I think. Furthermore, people who like to jump the gun and make such claims are also generally the full-on physicalist/reductionist types...whom I wholeheartedly disagree with.
Anyway, science is constantly reinventing itself, correcting itself, adding onto itself, pruning off dated hypotheses, etc. That is one thing that science is good at...it's always improving, and it's humble: it'll change when it comes across new data. Science, as it is now, cannot make any absolute claims on anything. All studies and papers and whatever never make a definitive claim...they only speak of the likelihood, the probability, the existence of or the lack of a strong correlation, etc.
However...even then, I think thinking about a god on those terms is getting waaay ahead of ourselves. Before that, one would have to put into question the phenomenal aspect of the universe to begin with...but once again, science won't answer that question. Look to philosophy for that.
