Is Science Omniscient?

[stiggy wiggy]

I ran across this quote from an atheist in another thread:

"Science doesn't even need to know whether there is a designer."

Why do atheists anthropomorphize science but no other branch of knowledge? It seems to me that if the verb is "know," then science can be an object but not a subject. Science can no more know something that can math or geography or history. No one would say, "Geography knows that Florida is a peninsular" or that "Math knows that the square root of 2 is an irrational number."

I realize that on the surface this may seem like a petty distinction, but I think it telling. We can learn about the physical world from science but we cannot learn from science if the physical world exhausts all that we can know about reality. Falsely giving science the attribute of knowing, as opposed to being known, can give some people the idea that science has the potential to be omniscient.

Science may not need to know if there is a designer, but if we are equally apathetic, then we will drown in our shallowness.

 

[King Charisma]

I think you're shallow too, Stanky! Look, we agree on something.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I think you're shallow too, Stanky! Look, we agree on something.

That was quite erudite. You may resemble Ernest Borgnine with a bad wig, but there's apparently a bit more to you.

 

[King Charisma]

boring

yawn

 

[stiggy wiggy]

yawn

Is it past your bedtime, Borgy?

 

[King Charisma]

Is it past your bedtime, your Highness?

Why? Am I bothering you?

 

[Tiburon]

I ran across this quote from an atheist in another thread:

"Science doesn't even need to know whether there is a designer."

Why do atheists anthropomorphize science but no other branch of knowledge? It seems to me that if the verb is "know," then science can be an object but not a subject. Science can no more know something that can math or geography or history. No one would say, "Geography knows that Florida is a peninsular" or that "Math knows that the square root of 2 is an irrational number."

I realize that on the surface this may seem like a petty distinction, but I think it telling. We can learn about the physical world from science but we cannot learn from science if the physical world exhausts all that we can know about reality. Falsely giving science the attribute of knowing, as opposed to being known, can give some people the idea that science has the potential to be omniscient.

Science may not need to know if there is a designer, but if we are equally apathetic, then we will drown in our shallowness.

So it's apathetic to not do something that doesn't need to be done?
I don't need to punch my neighbour in the face. Is it apathetic of me not to?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Why? Am I bothering you?

I noticed you changed my words. Does it embarrass you that you resemble Ernest Borgnine with a wig?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

So it's apathetic to not do something that doesn't need to be done?

It's apathetic to have no interest in if there be a Creator.

I don't need to punch my neighbour in the face. Is it apathetic of me not to?

No, why would you even entertain such a stupid thought?

 

[treeplanter]

I ran across this quote from an atheist in another thread:

"Science doesn't even need to know whether there is a designer."

Why do atheists anthropomorphize science but no other branch of knowledge? It seems to me that if the verb is "know," then science can be an object but not a subject. Science can no more know something that can math or geography or history. No one would say, "Geography knows that Florida is a peninsular" or that "Math knows that the square root of 2 is an irrational number."

I realize that on the surface this may seem like a petty distinction, but I think it telling. We can learn about the physical world from science but we cannot learn from science if the physical world exhausts all that we can know about reality. Falsely giving science the attribute of knowing, as opposed to being known, can give some people the idea that science has the potential to be omniscient.

Science may not need to know if there is a designer, but if we are equally apathetic, then we will drown in our shallowness.

Boring...

Have you pivoted
from
"God is worthy of our devotion"
to
"God exists"
because you have finally realized the futility of proving the former?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Boring...

Have you pivoted
from
"God is worthy of our devotion"
to
"God exists"
because you have finally realized the futility of proving the former?

Futility toward YOU? Correct. Just as I might pivot in a conversation with Stevie Wonder from "Fire trucks are red" to "Fire trucks exist."

 

[Tiburon]

It's apathetic to have no interest in if there be a Creator.

No, why would you even entertain such a stupid thought?

Can science determine the designed-ness of the universe we inhabit? Can science measure the supernatural?

As far as science is concerned there appears to be no need. Science is used to investigate the world as it presents itself. Whether it was designed or not doesn't effect our observation. It isn't apathy. It is understanding it's limits.

Anthropomorphising science isn't restricted to atheists.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Can science determine the designed-ness of the universe we inhabit? Can science measure the supernatural?

No.

As far as science is concerned there appears to be no need.

Science cannot determine needs. Neither for itself, nor us. More anthropomorphizing.

 

[King Charisma]

Science cannot determine needs. Neither for itself, nor us. More anthropomorphizing.

And religion can determine nothing whatsoever.

 

[Tiburon]

No.



Science cannot determine needs. Neither for itself, nor us. More anthropomorphizing.

Science can determine what it needs to generate a theory with testability and good explanatory power.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

And religion can determine nothing whatsoever.

Amen, Borgy.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Science can determine what it needs to generate a theory with testability and good explanatory power.

Yeah.

 

[Furion]

Can science determine the designed-ness of the universe we inhabit?

Essentially those inside the box cannot describe anything outside the box. And will not be able to fully describe the box they inhabit. So, no.

Can science measure the supernatural?

Science is about the natural, it doesn't consider the supernatural. It has no instrumentation to do it, it doesn't know any of the parameters.

Anthropomorphising science isn't restricted to atheists.

When one has the guts to offer that they speak for science, then they necessarily anthropomorphize it. Like the boob Fauci claiming he is the science.

 

[Caroljeen]

Can science determine the designed-ness of the universe we inhabit? Can science measure the supernatural?

As far as science is concerned there appears to be no need. Science is used to investigate the world as it presents itself. Whether it was designed or not doesn't effect our observation. It isn't apathy. It is understanding it's limits.

Science can't determined designed-ness, nor measure supernatural because it only looks at the natural, materialist world. But with the use of scientific methods, we find things in the natural world that infer a designer such as constants and laws. The use of science helps us to understand the mechanism but not the designer of the mechanism.

 

[Whatsisface]

Science can't determined designed-ness, nor measure supernatural because it only looks at the natural, materialist world.

The reason science only looks at the natural as you say is because the supernatural seems hidden, it doesn't manifest in this world for examination. If suddenly medical miracles for eg started giving cures way above current statistical cure rates, that would give us something to examine.

But with the use of scientific methods, we find things in the natural world that infer a designer such as constants and laws. The use of science helps us to understand the mechanism but not the designer of the mechanism.

You can't go further than infer which falls short of these constants and laws actually demonstrating a designer. You are more or less assuming a designer.