the role of \"the scientific method\" in agnostic thinking (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, May 31, 2010, 10:57 (5099 days ago) @ George Jelliss

In my earlier post I tried to summarize atheist beliefs: i.e. that science would eventually create life, would explain how the universe and life assembled themselves naturally, and would prove that consciousness is the product of purely chemical processes. -GEORGE: In fact I would not go as far as this. Progress will undoubtedly be made in answering these questions, but whether we will ever "create life" in the same way that it appeared initially is doubtful, since the extreme conditions may not be replicable, and there may be greater subtleties in the functioning of consciousness than dhw supposes, on behalf of atheists.-Thank you for this correction, which I think brings all parties closer together than is sometimes apparent. You are acknowledging that even in the future science is liable to have its limitations, and since our current knowledge of all these fundamental questions is at present so thin, it raises the question of how solidly based is belief in materialism. This provides a direct link with the second part of your post.-You dispute the value of subjective experiences, and argue that the scientific method "insists on communicability of evidence, and if there is no way someone can transfer their subjective experiences to the mind of a sceptic what value can there be in such experiences? They may be the basis for personal decisions, but they cannot be imposed on others as "true" or "real" knowledge without independent proofs."-Following this very clear and rational line of argument, what independent proofs do you have to support belief that the universe and life came about spontaneously through chance and the unconscious workings of Nature, and that consciousness itself with all its manifestations is the product solely of the physical cells in the brain? Your own studies and experiences have led you to think these the most likely explanations, and they "may be the basis for personal decisions but they cannot be imposed on others as "true" or "real" knowledge without independent proofs." David's studies and experiences have led him to the opposite belief, but he doesn't have the independent proofs either. Nor does Dawkins, nor does the Pope. All of you are satisfied with your own subjective thought processes and conclusions, which is entirely understandable. But at present science, which you regard "as the only reliable method of finding out about anything" (27 May, at 20.45), cannot provide the "true" or "real" knowledge that would enable you to transfer your subjective thought processes to the mind of a sceptic. And so it all boils down to what each of us as individuals accepts as evidence. However, I don't see this as a problem so long as people like ourselves are willing to exchange views in the rational manner of your post. Problems only arise when "impose" becomes the operative word, and intolerance takes the place of reasoned discussion.