So I read the first two meditations (wow) on first philosophy and have a question.

If Descarte argued the existence of God (or something..) and the meditations are still the authoritative text in modern philosophy, how is it that science is so athiest? Science and philosophy are taught in the same universities. Am I missing something? Is atheism really the overwhelming majority view in science?

Is science even capable of making a statement on whether God (or something) exists or doesn't?

Or is science so totally separate from philosophy that it doesn't matter?

aahh the sweet and tangible irony. When rene himself, a rebel against prevailing schools of thought at the time has now become the standard reading of students in philosophy today.
I know it's off topic but it still gets me every time.

I've always seen atheism as a way for people to attach themselves to an identity of thought. In no way is it a requirement for the scientific pursuit, more of an ice breaker between like-minds in inevitably awkward social gatherings.

Science involves empirical observation, so no, it technically isn't capable of disproving the supernatural, but scientists surely have their own beliefs and philosophical positions. They just can't add, for instance, the non-existence of God into their formal models because it's extraneous and irrelevant conjecture. e.g. Dawkins isn't doing science when he claims there isn't a God, he's making ethical and metaphysical arguments supported by scientific facts, so his claims fall into the realm of philosophy.

Hahaha nice Sphorange

Science and philosophy may be taught in the same universities, but they are very separate departments! I go to university, so I can attest to this. We have Philosophy classes where the existence of God and what happens after death is a main topic, but at the same time there are a ton of science classes. But for example in a chemistry class, the claim might be, "If you mix chemical X with mixture Y, then you will get result Z. Let me demonstrate... This is backed by theory W, and so on." (You can tell I'm not a scientist.)

There isn't an explicit claim in the science class that, "There is no god, kids. Go home and tell your parents." They teach you what we know about science so you can get a job, do research, etc. Of course maybe this is different at the higher levels, but that generally just raises the technical nature of the classes.

Interesting note, however: I have not met one religious person in the time I have been here. Maybe I just don't get out enough (this is likely), but pretty much everyone I meet either doesn't discuss it or is a pure atheist/agnostic. I have problems with these labels, so I am personally more of a nonparticipant. I call myself spiritual at times.

Atheists are so commonly constrained by certain containing ideologies, such as "evolution" or certain laws that bound the universe. I prefer things to be open to interpretation, so that I am not limited by a certain school of thought or ideology. This gets too deep for everyday conversations, so the term "nonreligious" is helpful. Educated people tend toward atheism as it is an important result of critical thinking. There is no solid "scientific" evidence, and religions so often inspires violence and mind control, so the more educated tend to avoid it.

Einstein's quote is applicable here: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." While this is taken somewhat out of context and misinterpreted a lot, the main point that they kind of work off each other is there. Religion is simply more comfortable for some who would rather succumb to a higher ideology/power, and science offers us concrete ways of improving our lives, so they work together.

Thanks for the replies. I've never been to university so I couldn't be sure what the truth was.

@BFP
Upon recognising that there are truths in the world still out of the grips of your own enthusiastic fingers, you have demonstrated an understanding of Descartes Fourth meditation.


If I suspend judgement when I don't clearly and distinctly grasp what is true, I obviously do right and am not deceived. But, if I either affirm or deny in a case of this sort, I misuse my freedom of choice. If I affirm what is false, I clearly err, and, if I stumble onto the truth, I'm still blameworthy since the light of nature reveals that a perception of the understanding should always precede a decision of the will.


Keep reading my friend, I suggest Reading next (if you can find it) Berkeleys philosophical writings. It's a good argument against a lot of Descartes thoughts.

I wonder if descarte was aware of entheogenic plants.

I can imagine he would be into the moorish hashish, and coffee....lots and lots of coffee

I really like his writings. I wonder if he had friends who were also into this stuff or if he was a lonely genius.

Descarte was a member of the elite class right? Could the ancient mysteries have survived underground until his time? That could explain the renascence. Some type of resurgence of entheogens. Just consider how advanced the classical world was compared to the dark ages, and the massive achievements in science and technology in the last century. We know for shore that the past centuries advances coincided with the rise of psychedelics. The mysteries were big in the classical period. What about the 16th - 18th centuries?
I mean look at all the things da Vinci came up with, I wouldn't be suprised if he discovered some aya analog.

This is way left of field.
An interesting thing I heard Randall Carlson saying today, that Glacial increase/decrease caused by the subtle fluctuations in temperature throughout history have had somewhat of an effect on the European cultures that lived through them.
I'm only paraphrasing but, there was a small warming period around the time of the renaissance that lasted for a couple of centuries and can be loosely attributed to an increase in the way of life for many people, allowing inquisitive pursuits to be carried out by daring fellows who no longer are worried about putting "food on the table" etc.

Descarte definitely had acquaintances within the power structures at the time, a good example being that of Elizabeth of Bohemia - the daughter of the controversial Frederick V, Elector Palatine. You might have heard Mckenna mentioning him as the ceremonial Godfather the of modern Boheme movements.

His propensity for geometry also, would have had his ideas whispered by the secret societies of the time I can imagine. Masons etc.

All of these men, Da Vinci included (speculation) were all staunch rebels (silent and public) against the power structure of the church, even Galileo had his brush with controversy. Such was the incredible theocratic pushback against the scientific revolution.

I think a combination of many factors attributed to the grand rush of novelty that pervaded the land at that time. Likely spurred on by the invention of the printing press centuries before, which allowed for any mere peasant who had the ability to read, and had access to the texts (which for the better half of a Millenia had enslaved the populous to the musing of a corrupt priest class) an opportunity to understand the eternal secrets of God. Thus given the ability to choose what they want to believe or not.

I wish we had time machines, plagues aside I think that is one of the most fascinating areas of our historical past.