The mathematically provable idea that something exists but is unknowable has clear philosophical and theological implications.
In which case, panpsychism (you are conscious and so is your coffee mug), despite its popularity, is wrong. Here’s a simple but serious explanation.
The thing is, scientists do philosophy whether they admit it and try to be coherent or don’t admit it, with distressing results.
As Michael Egnor tells us, scientism is not a cure for stupidity. But never mind, quite a few science savants have rushed in fearlessly: Evolutionary biologist David Krakauer, President of the Santa Fe Institute, told Nautilus, “Stupidity is using a rule where adding more data doesn’t improve your chances of getting [a problem] right. In […]
It’s been fashionable for Thomistic philosophers to avoid harassment by claiming to oppose ID but their positions rarely seem to make any sense. And when they do, it so often sounds as if the Thomist would be happier as a naturalist (nature is all there is). It might be workplace issue, who knows?
Michael Egnor: Determinism at the quantum level is not true. Nature is not deterministic.
At Nature Human Behaviour, we are told that the replication crisis is due to lack of rigid adherence to such a theory: Science, he explains, is about accumulating sets of observations that occur reliably—the Sun appears at different places in the sky depending on the season and time of day; finches have different shaped beaks […]
From a philosophy prof and chaplain: Let’s now look at an example of a scientific proof and contrast it with an argument from philosophy. An argument from natural science goes something like this (there are even some philosophical moves here, such as the move from effect to cause): “Everything that has a beginning has a […]
The black hole has always occupied a sort of space in the middle, between science and philosophy. It’s good to see that acknowledged. From ScienceDaily: Erik Curiel studied Philosophy as well as Theoretical Physics at Harvard University and the University of Chicago, and the primary aim of his current DFG-funded research project is to develop […]
From Unbelievable?: Can we answer all life’s questions using the scientific method? Unbelievable? presenter Justin Brierley chairs a live dialogue between Oxford professors John LennoxJohn Lennox and Peter Atkins followed by audience Q&A. See also: Where Did The Laws Of Nature Come From?: Astrophysicist Hugh Ross vs Chemist Peter Atkins (2018) and Mathematician John Lennox […]
The multiverse is not a logical deduction from the state of our universe. It is an attempt to short circuit discussion of apparent fine-tuning by appealing to the idea that no conclusions can be drawn because there is an infinite series we do not know about.
Paul Copan: Science has built-in limitations, but some moderns have placed a burden on science that it cannot—and was never meant to—bear. Theology, philosophy, and other sources of knowledge not only help supplement what science can show, but they can also enrich our study of science.
A naturalist atheist’s problems are not just with religion but also with philosophy. we can’t believe that our brain is shaped for fitness, not truth, and still expect to have a chance at discovering truth.
Shermer’s piece, in which he is looking back on his years as a Scientific American columnist, feels like an elegy. The reality today is that, however people may universally seek freedom, China is dedicated to using the high tech born of science to stamp it out and enlisting many other natures to do the same. And science, as opposed to technology, is coming under serious assault from those who demand that nature itself do their social justice bidding.
It’s the basic problem of the coffee mug. If naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” is true, either you and the mug are both conscious or neither of you is. The comments at BackRe(Action) illustrate the difficulty many have grasping that that is a serious problem.