Critical Realism in Science and Religion? | Episode 1802 | Closer To Truth

What’s the world as it really is? Not filtered, not represented, not interpreted. Bedrock reality. Meaning and purpose, if any, depends on it. But can we know if what we perceive is bedrock reality? What is critical realism and how does it apply to science and theology? Featuring interviews with Ernan McMullin, Bas C. van Fraassen, Paul Allen, Michael Ruse, Francisco J. Ayala, and J. Matthew Ashley.

Season 18, Episode 2 - #CloserToTruth

Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.

Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

#CriticalRealism #Reality

[wedas]

How could any critical realism be discussed without reference to Roy Bhaskar ?!!!?

[jamesruscheinski]

There is something real even in distortions and illusions, although not what we think it is.

[TOLG]

Is it just me, or is the water from the fountain falling in reverse? 1:30

[paulmitchell]

Reality simply exists. The more attempts at interpretation the more the lens is muddied.

[williamburts]

" Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self " Bhagavid-gita 10:32.

[zgobermn]

Excellent conversations-coming from theists and atheists at that! This should set the bar when these questions are discussed, and not the gutter-rambling of a Dawkins and his so called new atheist buddies.

[DrMargaretSatyaRose]

This is more on scientific realism than it is on critical realism. How can we have a whole episode on critical realism and not one mention of Roy Bhaskar??

[soubhikmukherjee]

A zoo of interpretations of quantum mechanics makes me wonder what is the underlying nature of reality.

[mdwoods]

What would the universe look like at a scale where quantum waves would be "visible"

[GM-oi]

Yes, there is some disanalogy between unobservable God in theology and unobservable (not directly observable) particles in science: God is not part of the world He created, while particles are. (10:19-11:56). However, God is present in the world, just as particles do. Thus, the disanalogy is lesser than was thought.

Will we regard particles (protons, electrons, etc.) as unobservable if we implant an artificial eye with the additional function of a powerful microscope instead of the natural eye? This will soon be possible. Particles will soon be directly observable. Therefore, they are not mere theoretical instruments of successfully doing physics and technology; particles really exist. Scientific Realism is true.

In theology, we can talk about a human soul as part or aspect of the world, just as we talk about directly unobserved particles as parts of the world in science: the soul can be regarded as a cause of the behaviour, just as a particle is considered a cause of a track in the tracking device. There is no disanalogy between a soul and a particle, except that we don't have a mature scientific theory of the soul.

[MarcoMeerman]

The universe is a word for anything that exists, whether we know of it or or not. If a god exists outside the universe, then by definition, a god does not exist.

[ikaeksen]

I can be blind but i didnt see Francisco J Ayala and J Matthew Ashley in the video. ^^ But good video ^^

[benandsylvia]

I don't think we CAN, ever prove a god or gods exist. Just because one believes in something doesn't mean it exists, in layman's terms. Sometimes we get lucky. Atoms were believed to exist long before we had any ideas of how we could explore this hypothesis. Until we can measure the evidence, I prefer to not believe in things just because we can think them up.

[ripleyfilms]

equiped enamblements and observable learning stage of philosophy seem and if need related to science religion would be associated why isn't

[Civilizashum]

Religion is neither critiical nor does it appear to have any use for realism to get to the extraordinary assertion(s).

[ripleyfilms]

real is the square box 1 of e mc squared = + 1 e equals mc squared

[tylermacdonald]

I was curious about this man until I found how deeply tied he was to the dictator of China. I am disgusted.

[patmoran]

Genuine science seeks better explanations of the nature of the world. Criticism is essential in science to solve problems and to create more problems. Genuine science works for small improvements in knowledge through error correction and elimination. Religions generally hope to spread the beliefs that whatever happens, the god(s) did it.

[publiusovidius]

"god is an unobservable entity". yet another claim without credible evidence. theology is a morass of such useless claims. these people feel a god ought to exist and so they flesh out an imaginary being and argue about imaginary properties of that imaginary being.

[stPrinciples]

Why do i say this channel should not debate on Religious Beliefs? They are fundamentally incompatible for debate. A Belief is something deemed as fact. Science is different. A belief is a conclusion. Science is seeking the truth. ITS POINTLESS to discuss beliefs because its a concluded story