Timeline for Can science or history be used to examine religions claims despite it being a naturalist enterprise that denies the existence of the supernatural?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22 at 18:43 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Sep 22 at 18:43 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @Jedediah Scientists have a tendency to describe things in ways we can describe things, using things we know, in ways we offer some specificity on, rather than accepting the non-specific and foreign vagueness involved with basically every claim that people group under "the supernatural". I guess you can call that bias if you want, but it would take some work to convince me that it's a bad bias. | |
| Sep 22 at 18:38 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @Jedediah The supernatural creator claim that many people make entails that the being exists in a way that's contrary to what we know, what we can imagine and what we can coherently describe. The "base" universe in simulation theory might follow different laws of physics, but you're just saying it's possible, not required. It might follow the exact same laws of physics, that aligns with what we know, which we can imagine and which we can coherently describe. Which seems to make that a much better guess than something which doesn't. But it's still a guess, not something we "know". | |
| Sep 22 at 18:15 | comment | added | Jedediah | It's silly to assert that scientists are free of that tendency, even if some people (also mostly on a heuristic level) are more likely to shrug and say, "Actually, that's not really scientific or necessary." | |
| Sep 22 at 18:13 | comment | added | Jedediah | But the funny thing is that there's no relation between "time" in a simulation vs the "base" universe, nor really an assurance that the physics would be the same. I really don't see a big difference between "in a place outside of our universe, a being which may follow different rules created everything that we can observe" and "in a place outside our universe (but Science, probably)..." But because there's a science-y vibe to the second version (and math attempting to rationalize it), people react differently, often at a heuristic level. | |
| Sep 22 at 17:33 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @Jedediah Simulation theory gives a concrete relation between the "base" universe and the simulated one (e.g. the simulated one exists in some computer). We know what a universe looks like, and we know how simulations work and what they're made of. So that seems to make a lot more sense than the attempts at a "supernatural" metaphysics explanation that I've seen, e.g. a deity that exists in a place that isn't a place, at a time that isn't a time, with a mind but not a brain, commonly with a bunch of theological problems stacked on top. But both seem unscientific, unjustified and unnecessary. | |
| Sep 22 at 17:08 | comment | added | Jedediah | It's definitely the case that some people (including a number of scientists) have a naturalistic bias in interpreting events. Compare reactions among some high-profile non-religious thinkers to claims of miracles and a being existing outside of reality, versus reactions by those same people to Simulation Theory, which is indistinguishable in many of its implications. | |
| Sep 19 at 8:30 | history | edited | NotThatGuy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 239 characters in body
|
| Sep 19 at 8:20 | history | edited | NotThatGuy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 239 characters in body
|
| Sep 19 at 7:48 | history | edited | NotThatGuy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 115 characters in body
|
| Sep 19 at 6:48 | history | edited | NotThatGuy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 857 characters in body
|
| Sep 19 at 6:01 | history | answered | NotThatGuy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |