Bas van Fraassen - Does God Mix with Science?

Clearly, religion must speak with science: if religion claims to be an approach to the entirety of existence, then it must embed the discoveries and insights of science. Religion, at its own risk, ignores science.

[hyrocoaster]

Well, van Fraassen being religious was the last thing I expected after reading his Wikipedia.

[darkknightsds]

I appreciate van Fraassen's take here. It is very consistent with my own experience, and what's laid out in books like "Introduction to Christianity" by Joseph Ratzinger.

[elemileTLDR]

The main disonance I find here is that, after praising science's skeptical virtues (taking skepticism itself as a virtue) and, in the same empiricist attitude, not granting scientific contents as having metaphysical insight, how can he now claim religious mythological contents having such advantaged position? I can endorse his having an all important narratological place for God as a character (thus meaningful for ethics and aesthetics), but I do not see coherence in his sudden epistemic leap of faith by giving God metaphysical reality (thus effectively leaving the concept of God beyond any possible inquiry and radical questionning). I mean: isn't believing in God a categorical mistake like the one he criticized before? Since he also openly considers an epistemological step forward for science to get free from XVII century metaphysics, why is he abiding back to a concept of God that is, at best, Descartes' formal (not personal, nor affective) take on it?

[CesarClouds]

0:27 It's only a category mistake if you presuppose, à la scholastics, an ontological domain as such, ignoring relevant fields like religious studies and anthropology (indeed, he didn't mention these at 1:00 - 1:11), which then affords you all the metaphysical toys and wiggle room to intellectually dignify such ideas.

[markfennell]

Philosophy is the study of wisdom. This can be broken down into several categories.

Descartes for example divided philosophy into the following groups.

1. Reality and truth. How do we know what is real.

2. Logic and experimentation. This is essentially perfecting our intellectual tools to make sure that our searching leads us to the right answer. Rather than having some bias or flaw which leads us astray.

3. Study of the material world. This is what you might call the physical sciences. How does a bird fly. How are stars created.

4. Metaphysics. These are all the topics which provide meaning to life. What is the soul. Consciousness. Morals and ethics. Living a good life.

5. Governments and other organizational structures. How do we create a society of individuals. Are there some absolute morals we must encode into law.

These are the main categories of philosophy according to Descartes.

All of which seek a greater understanding of life and seek greater wisdom.

[nicholocadongonan]

van Fraassen's theology is interesting. it seems wildly dissonant, taking his empiricism into account, but i'll admit i don't have enough to even conjecture such. he's that one theological existentialist i never saw coming.

[neoepicurean]

I did not fully understand van Fraassen's position. Sounded like a 'god of the gaps' to me. I get the feelings of awe and humility from the world around me, but I can explain them in secular terms that have a stronger grounding. A metaphysical idea of God is one thing, but a loving and personal God is another.

[rumidude]

"... it's a matter of perceiving. When I look at the mountains I see them as the manifestation of god's grandeur." This is OK, but does he also see the manifestation of god when he see's the results of a tsunami? An avalanche? Of a devastating flood? Does he see the manifestation of god in the terrible diseases which have plagued humanity?

[PACXS]

Could someone explain why does an empiricist not buy into metaphysics such as cause and effect? Is it because cause and effect are ideas that cannot be directly observed? I am seriously wondering how this can be combined with science, where the gold standard are experiments, so causal relations can be described. If there are no cause and effect, how could you have a scientific theory of understanding?


And does Prof. van Fraassen mean this belief in a literal way? Or is this a spiritual experience, without a claim to reality?

[andrebrown]

I can go with the perception argument; when I see a starving child, an abused child, a child born with cancer, or a disability they can never overcome and ostricises them from society, yeah I can see god there.

I do not want to hear about free will either and not understanding god's nature. If you can make it up I can make up my own god too. If you cannot demonstrate proof of God's existence, I do not have to with my god.

[nicksteini]

Why are cause and effects metaphysical terms?

[GM]

This is a very misleading view and even a brief look at the history of ideas should be sufficient to see why.

The division between science and religion is a very recent one -- it only really happened in 17th century and did not become really clear until the 19th.

Prior to that there was very little distinction between theology, philosophy, and the rudiments of what we would call "science". And the same people were thinking and writing about all of them. Theological dogma shaped metaphysics, metaphysical considerations influenced interpretations of the religion, and the philosophy of the day was shaped by what we might consider "scientific" observations and theories about the world around us even though it was in fact one giant mess of unjustified assumptions, misunderstandings and falsehoods, that, because the empirical scientific element of all that activity was so tiny, held back the progress of knowledge for some 1500 years.

The push for separation of religion from science as "separate spheres" began when science made it clear that most of religion's claims are pure nonsense. Had that not happened, I doubt we would ever be hearing about how bringing in a scientific approach to religion is a "category mistake". I highly doubt that if scientists were to somehow find clear evidence for God's existence, or for Jesus being a historical figure just as the one described in the Bible and having done exactly the same miracles, theologians would scoff at it and say "you are using scientific methods to do this, we don't need that". Of course that is not what would happen, they would happily embrace it and loudly tout it as a major success for them till the end of time.

The method of "science" basically boils down to not making claims that are not justified by logic and evidence. There isn't really a restriction to purely materialistic explanations of phenomena, that is simply a working assumption based on a vast amount of accumulated experience. So if you want to exempt whatever you're doing from the constraint that it should have some foundation in logic and evidence, feel free to do so, but you should not then proclaim yourself to be a serious thinker and claim that what you're doing is a respectable intellectual activity, because it is not.

[BradHolkesvig]

I'm the only one on earth who knows why science exists and God's purpose for using characters called scientists. If you want to know why God needed science, come to me and find out.

[asecmimosas]

Amazing the people who turn on philosophy when it fails to justify their warrantless dogma.

[GeoCoppens]

Does God Mix with Science? Clearly a total idiotic nonsense question!

[senjinomukae]

Fuzzy nonsense. Grow up and own up to reality. Very weak.