Does Anyone Really Know?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293424333' post='2194583']A philosopher said "I think, therefore I am!" This is the one and only thing that we can be 100% sure of, that our minds must exist or we would not be writing things on PM. Everything else relies on some empirical evidence. There is much empirical evidence for our faith beginning with the fact that there are millions who believe what we believe. In fact most humans have some sort of religious belief, the evidence of numbers! Scientists try to concoct some theory on how the human brain 'invents' religion yet they can't even cure depression, so how would they know? It would require a greater leap of faith for me to believe them and believe that creation came about as a 'symphony of natural selection' than it would to believe in a creator. I have several other empirical evidences for my faith, but of course I cannot prove them conclusively in the way that I can prove that my mind exists.[/quote]Nothing you presented here classifies as empirical evidence or knowledge. It is at best your theological belief and perspective.

The philosophy of science supposes that we not have faith in science, [i]that we not believe evolution[/i], that we embrace critical thinking and skepticism. We can know science and evolution, but we do not believe in it. But you are not required to accept science or evolution. If you would like to propose any empirical evidence of any faith, I welcome you to present it.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293396026' post='2194499']
But that wasn't the point. What Catholics are doomed and what non Catholics have the possibility of salvation is God's call and him alone. The Church has the authority to teach what is right and what is wrong, but also the human conscience will do that, so the Churches position is one of guidance. I agree that rejection of Christ leaves one in a very shaky position. Without Christ we are easy prey for satan and will most probably descend into evil ways, but even then Gods Will can be taking place to achieve his purpose and the eventual acceptance of him. Some people can be in a state of denial, rejecting him in their mind while knowing in their soul that it is true. It is only a matter of time before that barrier is broken.

My original complaint was that the statement 'there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church' is misleading until one understands it. One has the possibility of having Christ and therefore being a member of the 'body of Christ', which is the universal catholic church, without knowing it and having been misguided into another religion or still in a state of unknowing. In other words Jesus resides in your soul, and you can have him in your mind by your emulation of him without knowing his true name or knowledge of his historical mission 2000 years ago. By my second previous quote, I think this is what the Church is saying. It's not over until you are in a state of rejection of Christ at death. (the unforgivable sin) And by rejection I mean one has descended into a state of selfishness rejecting those things that Christ stands for.
[/quote]

Yes, it is possible to go to heaven outside of the Catholic Church, but very, very difficult.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1293500810' post='2194700']
Nothing you presented here classifies as empirical evidence or knowledge. It is at best your theological belief and perspective.

The philosophy of science supposes that we not have faith in science, [i]that we not believe evolution[/i], that we embrace critical thinking and skepticism. We can know science and evolution, but we do not believe in it. But you are not required to accept science or evolution. If you would like to propose any empirical evidence of any faith, I welcome you to present it.
[/quote]

[quote]Empirical evidence :- derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory. [/quote] That doesn't seem to say that I have to be able to demonstrate my observations to others for it to be valid.
Unless we actually observe every scientific observation or experiment in person we are accepting on faith that the scientists have completed the experiments correctly and are not producing false results which sometimes is the case. A high percentage of science remains theory and we have to have faith that that theory is correct. People accepted that the world was flat until it was proved otherwise.

I can read the history and Christian belief from the Bible and other works. Theory!

But I also have empirical evidence. If the fact that I cannot demonstrate that evidence to other people means it's not empirical evidence, then I guess you're right.
The Catholic Church says that "God the beginning and end of all things can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason through created things." I have observed that certain religious activities or thoughts have repeatable results, but once again I cannot show my feelings to you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

there's historical evidence. this might not be 'demonstrateable' like lab tests are. but they are demonstrateable to the same degree many historical things are so we should treat it at least as equallly, which means we can assume a lot about jesus. there's the gospels and new testament which seem to be written by some eye witnesses to jesus, and people who have a lot to add, such as st. paul. there's people who were eye witnesses to jesus' disciples after he was gone, notably their deaths. who would die for a lie? sort of stuff.
there's evidences of miracles. even jesus said 'if you don't believe me due to me, believe due to the miracles.' it's also commonly said by folks such as augustine or aquanis, that it's cheap to believe because of miracles, and it is to some extent, but it's still the case that jesus said what he did, and it's still proof.

Edited December 28, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i also would argue that the natural world and how things seem to have come to be demonstrates God's existence... i think it's proof. i maintain as i argue in that big essay i wrote about it, that i dont think you can prove God's existance... but it's still proof to a significant extent.

[dairygirl4u2c]

people might say 'we have to have a natural skepticism about miracles' or this or that. but says who? at some point, it's almost like sticking your head in the ground, like an osterich.
that might be why some want to jump on 'it's a fact' so quickly. but it's still faith though, whatever you make of all the ontological evidences, and even more scientific evidences. and all the arguments developed in this thread by everyone is still the issue

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293534413' post='2194745']That doesn't seem to say that I have to be able to demonstrate my observations to others for it to be valid.[/quote]Empirical observations/evidence/facts/knowledge ideally must be from a natural world through the tangible senses, moreover must be demonstrable to the same. A priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation are generally rejected in empiricism.[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293534413' post='2194745']Unless we actually observe every scientific observation or experiment in person we are accepting on faith that the scientists have completed the experiments correctly and are not producing false results which sometimes is the case. A high percentage of science remains theory and we have to have faith that that theory is correct. People accepted that the world was flat until it was proved otherwise.[/quote]No competent scientist or student of sciences has "[i]faith[/i]" in science or scientists. Regretfully, as I mentioned previously in the topic, you are using a word so loosely that it becomes insufficient for this discussion. However, we tend to give the work of the scientific community the benefit of the doubt, but in almost all cases we can review that same work.

Science is self-correcting, scientists follow a deductive reasoning, they go where the evidence takes them and are willing to reform their perspective of the world based on that evidence. There is nothing sacred or traditional in science, almost at the drop of the hat we are willing to reconsider and change our opinions to align themselves with facts. In the case of the geocentrism and heliocentrism, when the evidence came to support heliocentrism, geocentrism was abandoned in favor of heliocentrism. Just as with new evidence of Earth's place in a massive universe has changed, so has our opinion and perspective. It will continue to change, we are self-correcting.[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293534413' post='2194745']I can read the history and Christian belief from the Bible and other works. Theory![/quote]Not in an empirical or scientific sense, perhaps in a theological sense. Argumentatively we can read the history, religious texts, and claims of many different cultures past and present, it doesn't necessarily make their claim more or less valid. But these sort of claims are generally not empirical. [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293534413' post='2194745']But I also have empirical evidence. If the fact that I cannot demonstrate that evidence to other people means it's not empirical evidence, then I guess you're right.[/quote]Generally speaking, if it is not demonstrable, it is not empirical.[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293534413' post='2194745']The Catholic Church says that "God the beginning and end of all things can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason through created things." I have observed that certain religious activities or thoughts have repeatable results, but once again I cannot show my feelings to you.[/quote]Yes, but the First Vatican Council was not arguing faith could be derived from natural things or human reason, so the Council Fathers were not arguing that there is empirical evidence for faith. They were more arguing that via a priori reasoning and inductive reasoning one could look to the natural things of the world through human reason to have some reason sufficient for faith, however notice they don't say proof. But the problem with this pronouncement, is the same as I mentioned before, there lacks any clear definitions of what they mean by "[i]knowledge[/i]" or "[i]certainty[/i]". More dauntingly, they don't describe the methods or examples of finding these "[i]certitudes[/i]" or "[i]knowledge[/i]".

Faith is not dependent upon science or reason, but faith ought to be kept reconciled to reason and science, the relationship between one's faith and reason ought to be similar to inductive and deductive reasoning or a priori and a posteriori reasoning.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Mr.CatholicCat

[dairygirl4u2c]

scientists never 'accept as true' anything.... they fail to reject. 'fail to reject the null hypothesis'. it would be an odd thing 'fail to reject the null hypothesis' when the null hypothesis is that christianity is true.

'i am the way, the null hypothesis, and the life'

"That is why I said that you will die in your sins; for unless you fail to reject the null hypothesis that I Am who I claim to be, you will die in your sins."

Edited December 28, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[WillT]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1293569309' post='2194814']
Science is self-correcting, scientists follow a deductive reasoning, they go where the evidence takes them and are willing to reform their perspective of the world based on that evidence. [/quote]
Don't scientists use inductive reasoning most of the time?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1293569309' post='2194814']
Generally speaking, if it is not demonstrable, it is not empirical.
[/quote]
Well I've looked at a few definitions of empirical evidence and I can't see one that specifies that it must be demonstrable. Scientists may stick to some rule where they must always seek a physical explanation and some of heard are crazy, like birds coming back through time to disable the synchrotron. They will explain existence by the probability that in such a large universe there must be worlds of the goldilocks variety and development of life follows as a symphony of natural selection. Personally when I look at trees, mountains, caves, clouds I can see clearly a creator. For me it would take a much greater giant leap of faith to accept the scientific version and when I see a scientist struggling to debunk religion and replace it with natural science I almost laugh at how foolish that seems. Generally I kind of thought that faith was a free choice thing. God wants us to come to him out of choice not by coercion. But that has not been my experience at all. It seems as though God chose me for some unknown reason. Where others claim to wish to have faith but can't, I'm the opposite. If for some reason I did not want faith then I would struggle to lose it. I have no explanation for this, My halo is down around my ankles, I sin just as much as anyone and struggle with prayer and many Catholic rules. Yet I consider what I have is me, once it may have been faith but now it is empirical evidence.
[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1293569309' post='2194814']
No competent scientist or student of sciences has "[i]faith[/i]" in science or scientists.
[/quote]

Well I can't agree with that. The relevant governments must have faith in scientists to invest large amounts of money in a LHC to try to prove the theory of the Higgs Boson and what ever other benefits may be produced. Mr Edison must have had faith in his ideas to try to develop them. I have this theory that 'dark matter' is not the explanation as to why galaxy's exhibit odd gravitational phenomena, but I can't prove it and have no evidence even only observed by myself therefore it remains faith that I believe that I am correct.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1293569309' post='2194814']

Science is self-correcting, scientists follow a deductive reasoning, they go where the evidence takes them and are willing to reform their perspective of the world based on that evidence.
[/quote]
I imagine that could be applied to religion. The Catholic Church has not made determinations on many things simply because it can't. For example The Church claims to not have taught that un-baptised infants go to limbo and I suggest possibly because the notion is ludicrous. Baptism of desire sounds much more logical and more descriptive of the intelligent, loving and compassionate God that we know. If evidence could be found that Jesus had been here more than once we would accept it. Why not? If the Church were to find some indisputable evidence of some scripture I have no doubt the Pope would speak infallibly on it.The Church does not give rules unless they have empirical evidence to support it or else they would be the laughing stock if proved wrong. <br>

Edited December 29, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='WillT' timestamp='1293606905' post='2194886']Don't scientists use inductive reasoning most of the time?[/quote]In a scientific method it is chiefly deductive.[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293618384' post='2194896']Well I've looked at a few definitions of empirical evidence and I can't see one that specifies that it must be demonstrable. Scientists may stick to some rule where they must always seek a physical explanation and some of heard are crazy, like birds coming back through time to disable the synchrotron. They will explain existence by the probability that in such a large universe there must be worlds of the goldilocks variety and development of life follows as a symphony of natural selection. Personally when I look at trees, mountains, caves, clouds I can see clearly a creator. For me it would take a much greater giant leap of faith to accept the scientific version and when I see a scientist struggling to debunk religion and replace it with natural science I almost laugh at how foolish that seems. Generally I kind of thought that faith was a free choice thing. God wants us to come to him out of choice not by coercion. But that has not been my experience at all. It seems as though God chose me for some unknown reason. Where others claim to wish to have faith but can't, I'm the opposite. If for some reason I did not want faith then I would struggle to lose it. I have no explanation for this, My halo is down around my ankles, I sin just as much as anyone and struggle with prayer and many Catholic rules. Yet I consider what I have is me, once it may have been faith but now it is empirical evidence.[/quote]I fear you have fallen into the error of gnosticism.

"[i]Empirical evidence :- derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory.[/i]" - This is the definition you provided, if you are having difficulty with how that would relate to it being demonstrable, I suggest looking up the definition of demonstrable. But being a science major and a former political science major, who had to take philosophy classes, I can assure you that demonstrable is a necessity for empiricism and any scientific method.

It has to be demonstrable and repeatable, if someone came to the scientific community at large and said they discovered a method of perpetual energy, even further that they engineered such a generator. BUT, that they can't explain how and that their work was destroyed by the evil minions of orthodoxy, I would join in laughing them out of the halls of science.

But the rest of what you wrote sounds more like a layman's hearsay criticism about science.[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293618384' post='2194896']Well I can't agree with that. The relevant governments must have faith in scientists to invest large amounts of money in a LHC to try to prove the theory of the Higgs Boson and what ever other benefits may be produced. Mr Edison must have had faith in his ideas to try to develop them. I have this theory that 'dark matter' is not the explanation as to why galaxy's exhibit odd gravitational phenomena, but I can't prove it and have no evidence even only observed by myself therefore it remains faith that I believe that I am correct.[/quote]"[i]Faith[/i]" is just a poor word to use. If you were to say that politicians, scientists, or inventors "trusted" the scientific method I would be inclined to agree. But the philosophy of science and the scientific community in the 21st century has changed some, like it always will be, it is self-correcting. But no, scientists do not have faith in their findings, if their worth their salt, they "know" or are "certain" of their findings because it is well-supported by empirical observations, facts, evidence, and knowledge. It has been subjected to peer review, skepticism, demonstration, and so much more.[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293618384' post='2194896']I imagine that could be applied to religion. The Catholic Church has not made determinations on many things simply because it can't. For example The Church claims to not have taught that un-baptised infants go to limbo and I suggest possibly because the notion is ludicrous. Baptism of desire sounds much more logical and more descriptive of the intelligent, loving and compassionate God that we know. If evidence could be found that Jesus had been here more than once we would accept it. Why not? If the Church were to find some indisputable evidence of some scripture I have no doubt the Pope would speak infallibly on it.The Church does not give rules unless they have empirical evidence to support it or else they would be the laughing stock if proved wrong.[/quote]I am not sure why you want to pretend there is empirical evidence for faith, any faith, or why you want to bring up irrelevant examples that don't even exemplify empirical methods.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1293653418' post='2194951']

But the rest of what you wrote sounds more like a layman's hearsay criticism about science.
[/quote]

Probably! Not being a major of anything I can only use words by their dictionary definitions as I google them. I don't like to play with words they are confusing enough. Another thread asks the question if science and religion are compatible. To me God created science and works through it generally, so science is, may I call it a subset of the overall picture. (My humble layman's description.) But I'm sure that there are many scientists who will see it that way also. It has been pointed out that the Catholic Church has been involved in the scientific community. But there are also many scientists who cannot see out of the square of science and will go to extremes to debunk religion and become insulting to those who challenge their views. It's those scientists that I would criticise. And I love Futurama for it's cynicism of science, so you are probably correct, my revenge for those who are cynical of religion. This discussion has a similarity with discussions on atheism versus theism which is endless and boring. I'm not learning anything so I think I'll call it a day. You win!

[WillT]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1293653418' post='2194951']
In a scientific method it is chiefly deductive.[/quote]
How so?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='WillT' timestamp='1293684593' post='2195114']How so?[/quote]To very loosely speak of inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning starts with a premise, then gathers supporting reason and evidence for it. Deductive reasoning gathers evidence and reason together, then makes a conclusion from it.

In day-to-day life we use more commonly inductive reasoning, we make assumptions about the activity of the world around us without fully understanding or examining it. When we start our vehicle in the morning we may not understand how it works or deconstruct the vehicle to test if it works, but we trust that when started it will start. This is inductive reasoning. If we were to use deductive reasoning we would be disassembling and reassembling to see if it worked. But deductive reasoning helps because with it we discovered the method of using internal combustion engines, which allow most vehicles that we drive to work.

While most people who have gone through a High School level science course, they may see it as preachy and dogmatic, being presented lofty ideas with little time to explain or test. But when one goes into a higher education level course focused on science, normally the time is taken to more deeply explain and test those scientific conclusions. For example, it wasn't until I went into college that the scientific theory of evolution was really laid out before me in a comprehensible and more complete way. While the scientific method does work on the accumulative works from what preceded it, it still tests the validity of those claims even still.

It may sound silly, but in schools and universities across the free world there are students engaging in scientific studies where they test many of the conclusions of science from centuries past. These experiments have become trivial to most. For example the "Foucault pendulum", something that isn't so complicated at one time demonstrated movement of the Earth, something that was once considered heretical or unthinkable. But these experiments are still tested, so even though the scientific community works on that accumulative body of work, it is still deductive because of how the work got there and the fact it is still tested.

[WillT]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1293689183' post='2195140']
To very loosely speak of inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning starts with a premise, then gathers supporting reason and evidence for it. Deductive reasoning gathers evidence and reason together, then makes a conclusion from it.

In day-to-day life we use more commonly inductive reasoning, we make assumptions about the activity of the world around us without fully understanding or examining it. When we start our vehicle in the morning we may not understand how it works or deconstruct the vehicle to test if it works, but we trust that when started it will start. This is inductive reasoning. If we were to use deductive reasoning we would be disassembling and reassembling to see if it worked. But deductive reasoning helps because with it we discovered the method of using internal combustion engines, which allow most vehicles that we drive to work.

While most people who have gone through a High School level science course, they may see it as preachy and dogmatic, being presented lofty ideas with little time to explain or test. But when one goes into a higher education level course focused on science, normally the time is taken to more deeply explain and test those scientific conclusions. For example, it wasn't until I went into college that the scientific theory of evolution was really laid out before me in a comprehensible and more complete way. While the scientific method does work on the accumulative works from what preceded it, it still tests the validity of those claims even still.

It may sound silly, but in schools and universities across the free world there are students engaging in scientific studies where they test many of the conclusions of science from centuries past. These experiments have become trivial to most. For example the "Foucault pendulum", something that isn't so complicated at one time demonstrated movement of the Earth, something that was once considered heretical or unthinkable. But these experiments are still tested, so even though the scientific community works on that accumulative body of work, it is still deductive because of how the work got there and the fact it is still tested.
[/quote]
I see. We are working from different definitions of deduction/induction. I was thinking more along the lines of deductive reasoning being truth preservative. In other words, with a deductive argument, if the premises are true then the conclusion is as well, by necessity. With induction, however, it is merely a probabilistic conclusion.

At any rate, I still don't see how science is deductive according to your definition because it seems that most scientists start with a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis, which is pretty much what you gave as a definition of inductive reasoning.