Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Indoctrination of Children
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 121 of 295 (524297)
09-15-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by slevesque
09-15-2009 4:42 PM


Methodological Naturalism
If the supernatural was to be the cause of something inside nature (ex: DNA, or miracle.) than it would be science who would determine it, not theology. So although science deals with nature, it does not have to be naturalistic.
Science uses something called (to make it sound fancy) "methodological Naturalism". This simply means that we use the approach of science to learn about things that can be observed*. If something tinkers with something "inside nature" it might be observable. Then science could comment on it.
There has never been any way suggested of learning about anything that beats this approach. If we can't compare a suggestion to reality (observe something) then we have no other way of knowing if it is correct or not. NONE.
We know that there is an ocean of nonsense out there. If, submerged in that ocean there are tidbits of very interesting fact then it gets very hard to find them if we can't bring observation and testing to bear on it.
If you think there is any other way to reliably learn about anything then I suggest you start a thread and give us the details. Somehow no one comes forward with this.
The difficulty is, of course, that a god (as the word is generally used) can "tinker" in any number of ways that may not conform to any regularity or physical laws. If this doesn't happen to be captured at the moment of occurrence and never repeats there isn't much that can practically be done to learn about it. If then falls into the many, many "mmmm intersting"s that we have and can do nothing more with.
* an observation does not have to be (and in general should not be) only something we can see sitting in front of our noses. Since we don't actually "see" anything in a manner that most of us believe we do this makes sense. The word is misunderstood to a huge degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2009 4:42 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2009 6:27 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 130 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2009 10:30 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 122 of 295 (524303)
09-15-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by DrJones*
09-15-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Instruction vs indoctrination
I would think that it would not pose a problem to IDers, since it has already happened in I don't remember what country about a year or two and they didn't complain at all. In fact, it was the evolutionists who complained about it.
If this would happen in the US, I'm pretty sure at 90% that the NCSE would complain heavily against it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by DrJones*, posted 09-15-2009 5:39 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by DrJones*, posted 09-15-2009 6:41 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 123 of 295 (524304)
09-15-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by slevesque
09-15-2009 4:42 PM


Re: Instruction vs indoctrination
quote:
Would you find it appropriate to talk about irreducible complexity, Intelligent Design, etc. in a religious class ?
Irreducible complexity would be difficult to fit into a typical religious education course in a public school, because those courses are (and surely should be, if religion is to be taught at all) based on studying major world faiths- Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Sikhism, etc., supposedly without bias to or against any one of them. Now, to my knowledge, no religion, major or minor, is based on Young-Earth Creation, or holds it to be essential necessity. So the subject of evolution, or any other scientific view that is predicated on or predicates an old earth, has no real relevance in the typical school situation. (What so often is forgotten is that an old earth was widely accepted by European intelligentsia well before Darwin set sail.)
quote:
If so, would what they learn in this class come in contradiction with what they learn in science class (ex: naturalistic abiogenesis) ?
Indeed it would, if it was taught. But it would be taught as a possible conflict, because public schools, unlike religious institutions, do not prescribe, they merely describe. So student cognitive dissonance would be an option, if required!
quote:
Nonetheless, my opinion is that you do not teach things to children when they do not have the mental capabilities to question it. Teaching things to kids when they are not mentally able to express critical thinking on the subject equals indoctrination in my book.
In that case, one would be hardly able to teach anything. Philosophers dispute that anything is true! (One really ought to read my posts carefully. ) The good teacher in any case gives adequate indication that 'official' views have changed and will change, whether that be in science, history, the arts or whatever. So everything is provisional anyway, and most children are not that concerned with making sure that everything they learn is exactly correct; more in making sure they can absorb it to a level that will give them eventual success in the jobs market (if they care, that is). Which is what public education is for, and surely should be for- not to propagandise.
But propaganda seems to be exactly what YECs and IDers are wishing to pass on. They mostly claim to be Christians, if they are religious at all, but steadfastly ignore the fact that millions of self-described Christians, including virtually all European theologians, accept an old, evolved earth. They refuse to explain why YEC/ID is important in education. One has to suspect that they have an agenda that is not one that they care to make public. With their campaign to introduce non-scientific sources into science teaching they put at risk the very means of wealth production at its most basic level, and for the sake of a secret, suspect, agenda. Now that, surely, competes to be the last word in sociopathy? Maybe the most just response to them would be for them to be threatened with being left on an island in pre-Industrial Revolution conditions. No doubt there would then be sudden realisations that scientific theories are not so dumb after all, and the island would not need to be very large.
Edited by ochaye, : Improved sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2009 4:42 PM slevesque has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 124 of 295 (524307)
09-15-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by slevesque
09-15-2009 4:42 PM


Re: Instruction vs indoctrination
If the supernatural was to be the cause of something inside nature (ex: DNA, or miracle.) than it would be science who would determine it, not theology.
A miracle? What are you talking about? - We're talking about science not mythology.
If science only deals with the natural (i.e. only things that can be observed in nature), then how can one, using science, come to the conclusion that it could only be supernatural?
For all of human history it has been the other way around. Science has removed the supernatural from ever single equation. In this day and age, it has become apparent that there is no need to invoke a supernatural cause when deal with natural phenomena. This is science.
Miracles, supernatural entities, etc., are dealt with in theology, and I feel they should be taught in mythology because that's all Christianity is. Modern day mythology.
So although science deals with nature, it does not have to be naturalistic.
Is this an opinion of yours? How do you study the supernatural?
Or is it just a conclusion you arrive at because (A) you already believe in God, (B) you can't understand how things would work without him, or (C) both?
But Let me hypethetically agree that science cannot alude to any supernatural causes.
No, please, don't agree. Just explain how science would do that.
Would you find it appropriate to talk about irreducible complexity, Intelligent Design, etc. in a religious class ?
No, not at all. It is not a religion. I wouldn't want my kids learning that garbage that a handful of idiots are proposing.
ID has no place in modern education. It is NOT science, and clearly, by definition, it is not a religion.
I do not know at what age you teach evolution down in the states, but here in quebec we only had a bried overview of it during biology class in secondary 3 and 5.
What you are failing to understand is that modern biology is what it is today because of our understanding that things evolve.
It is not a seperate entity of biology, it is biology.
Nonetheless, my opinion is that you do not teach things to children when they do not have the mental capabilities to question it. Teaching things to kids when they are not mentally able to express critical thinking on the subject equals indoctrination in my book.
This is nonsense. If this were the case then kids wouldn't go to school until the age of 15.
However, let me ask, at what age should a child be taught about the mythological character known as god?
And so you teach the ToE when it is assumed that the children probably teenagers) are mentally capable of questioning it.
Questioning what? What do you think a 15 year old child should question? 1 specific theory that a few fundamentalist, who are not educated in the subject, question themselves?
Would you also encourage a 15 year old kid to question the theory of gravity? Or the atomic theory? Or thermodynamics?
No wait, just evolution, right? Because you have an apriori belief in the supernatural -(that you lack objective evidence for)- and want those indoctrinated in this belief to question a theory that has mountains of objective evidence to support it. That sadly, you've never learned.
If this is what you are suggesting, then you are commiting an educational disservice to anyone that you encourage to do the same. Seriously, you should be ashamed to promote this level of ignorance to children, and to adults that are gullible enough to believe you.
I'm glad that the educational system, throughout the world, disagrees with your ridiculous opinion.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2009 4:42 PM slevesque has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 125 of 295 (524309)
09-15-2009 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by NosyNed
09-15-2009 5:51 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
quote:
Science uses something called (to make it sound fancy) "methodological Naturalism". This simply means that we use the approach of science to learn about things that can be observed*. If something tinkers with something "inside nature" it might be observable. Then science could comment on it.
Yes. The scientific study of nature can only deal with naturalistic processes and methods. A miracle could only be scientifically detected if it were to leave evidence that is different from the evidence produced by natural processes.
quote:
There has never been any way suggested of learning about anything that beats this approach. If we can't compare a suggestion to reality (observe something) then we have no other way of knowing if it is correct or not. NONE.
No, your words go too far. I agree that science is the best way of learning about the functioning of nature, but you seem to be saying that science is the best way of learning about anything. This is false. Suppose, for example, that we wish to learn the meaning of a literary work. We do this through literary analysis, not through science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2009 5:51 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2009 7:02 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 128 by Straggler, posted 09-15-2009 7:16 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 129 by onifre, posted 09-15-2009 7:26 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 126 of 295 (524310)
09-15-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by slevesque
09-15-2009 6:11 PM


Re: Instruction vs indoctrination
I would think that it would not pose a problem to IDers,
Check out the Dover trial where the IDers tried to insist that ID was not religious based and were shown to be lying.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2009 6:11 PM slevesque has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 127 of 295 (524314)
09-15-2009 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by kbertsche
09-15-2009 6:27 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
No, your words go too far. I agree that science is the best way of learning about the functioning of nature, but you seem to be saying that science is the best way of learning about anything. This is false. Suppose, for example, that we wish to learn the meaning of a literary work. We do this through literary analysis, not through science.
And a major part of a literary analysis relies on methodological naturalism even if we decide that the process being conducted is not otherwise science. We need to actually have the text and read the darn thing.
I will, provisionally, grant that some parts of what might be named literary analysis does not, at present relay on a method that I could stretch to be included in "science". I may have overspoke.
However, some forms of literary analysis are very "scientific". The determination of an author of some anonymous piece can use things like word counts. The trace of which is a copy of what actually uses an "evolutionary" view of the documents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2009 6:27 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 128 of 295 (524317)
09-15-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by kbertsche
09-15-2009 6:27 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
No, your words go too far. I agree that science is the best way of learning about the functioning of nature, but you seem to be saying that science is the best way of learning about anything. This is false. Suppose, for example, that we wish to learn the meaning of a literary work. We do this through literary analysis, not through science.
Anything? No.
"What is art" and other such stereotypically subjective opinion based questions cannot be answered scientifically (although science may have some interesting answers as to why we like the "art" that we do - but that is a digression). But the conflation of "anything" and the supernatural answers under discussion is a false one.
What is real? What is "true"? In the context of this thread we are talking about forms of evidence that are objective, empirical and material as opposed to those that are not. Nature can be studied objectively and empirically because it is physical. The supernatural (if such a thing even exists - and there is little reason beyond personal conviction to think tht it does) cannot be studied in such a way.
In terms of the topic of this thread - Are not all established supernatural explanations for anything at any point in time in any culture simply the result of ongoing indoctrination? I mean what evidence is there really for anything supernatural at all beyond simplepersonal conviction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2009 6:27 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 129 of 295 (524320)
09-15-2009 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by kbertsche
09-15-2009 6:27 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
Suppose, for example, that we wish to learn the meaning of a literary work.
Isn't the "meaning" of literary work something completely subjective?
Couldn't we have 100 different readers with 100 different "meanings" for the work?
Who would be right?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2009 6:27 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 130 of 295 (524330)
09-15-2009 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by NosyNed
09-15-2009 5:51 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
I have no problem with methodological Naturalism in these terms, as to avoid the god of the gaps fallacy, you have to presuppose a natural cause to any event you encounter unless you have positive proof of otherwise.
I remember a post by Dr. Adequate which I had found very well written at the time:
Well, here's something to ponder. Consider what we might call a pure philosophical theist/supernaturalist: one who believes that there is a God, that God is the author of the universe, and that God can supervene the laws of nature. Let us also stipulate that our theist is highly intelligent, since the question is not what such a man might think given such a philosophy, but what he should think.
Now, my question is, to what extent should the conclusions of this theist differ from those of the naturalist?
The answer is: not that much. If the supernaturalist inexplicably loses his spectacles, he will suppose, and act on the supposition, that there is a naturalistic explanation for this, just like the philosophical naturalist. In trying to hypothesize what happened to them, he will be a methodological naturalist.
Unlike the naturalist, he need not reject a priori the idea that God sent an angel to bear his spectacles up to heaven, and will admit it as a philosophical possibility, but he will not attach very much weight to this. We stipulated that our theist should be intelligent, and this means that he will not commit the God-Of-The-Gaps fallacy.
No, the difference between them will be that the naturalist would tend to reject positive evidence of a miracle, such as actually witnessing the angel carry his spectacles up to heaven. In that case, he would tend to dismiss it as a hallucination; if there were corroborating witnesses, he might appeal to the notion of "mass hysteria" --- or, which is psychologically more likely, he might stop being a philosophical naturalist. The supernaturalist, meanwhile, might more readily accept the observation of an angel (especially if independently corroborated) as proof that there really was an angel.
When we look at the history of science, we see the attitude I have described in action. It is likely that some theists looked at a rainbow and uttered the Creationist mantra: "I don't understand it, so Goddidit" --- but their names are not recorded in the history of science. It is certain that some theists (the smart ones) looked at a rainbow, said "I don't understand it", and then went and found out.
Now, the relevance to the particular question in the OP is this. Any data that are really sufficient to lead a naturalist to conclude that evolution took place ought to lead the supernaturalist to the same conclusion. He might maintain the theoretical reservation that perhaps a miracle was involved, but he would need a good positive reason to suppose that this was the most likely explanation. For a mere belief in the possibility of miracles does not lead a reasonable man to make them the default explanation for phenomena.
That this is not invariably what theists conclude I attribute to two causes.
First, we supposed that our theist was intelligent. This is not always the case. The God-Of-The-Gaps fallacy has a powerful appeal to the human mind.
Second, of course, is the fact that theists do not usually start being theists because they have come to hold the philosophical position that I set out in the first paragraph of this post, nor are their further religious beliefs derived from these principles. Rather, they are taught from infancy to equate the existence of God and the truth about him with the correctness of their pastor's preferred interpretation of his favorite book.
Nonetheless, it is the case that a thinking theist will always (provisionally) accept that the causes of any phenomenon are natural unless he has a positive reason for supposing otherwise. Hence, as I have said, any data sufficient to convince a naturalist of (in particular) evolution, should be sufficient to (provisionally) convince the supernaturalist of the same thing.
i put all of it, even though it isn't all necessary to this discussion.
So here is my opinion on this: I am certainly not against methodological naturalism, since I consider myself 'intelligent' to the extent that I agree with Dr. Adequates view on this. However, I am against naturalism because if he had positive proof of a the supernatural acting in nature, he would reject it because of his belief system. The most explicit demonstration of this is through this quote by Dr. Scott Todd (Immunologist at Kansas state University):
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic
Note that he is not talking about if a single positive evidence of God was found, but if all the collection of scientific data was positive evidence of God, you would still had to reject it.
There seems to be this idea that methodological naturalism is so attached to naturalistic philosophies that you cannot take them appart, and so if you take one you have to take the other. But this is false.
Isaac Newton is the perfect example of what I think is the correct stance to adopt. He was probably the greatest scientist of all time, using methodological naturalism in all of his scientific inquiry. But, he was not naturalist, and he wrote even more on the bible than he did about science during his life. (Though he was probably a far greater scientist, since we remember Newton the scientist and not Newton the theologian ) His great comprehension of science and how it works never prevented him from believing in God, miracles, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2009 5:51 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2009 11:25 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 134 by Coyote, posted 09-15-2009 11:41 PM slevesque has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 131 of 295 (524334)
09-15-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by dwise1
09-15-2009 10:48 AM


Nice message but probably in the wrong topic
You previously got a bit of it in there, but I think your entire message would be best placed in the Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) topic. How about moving a copy to there?
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2009 10:48 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2009 11:30 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 132 of 295 (524335)
09-15-2009 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by slevesque
09-15-2009 10:30 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
However, I am against naturalism because if he had positive proof of a the supernatural acting in nature, he would reject it because of his belief system. The most explicit demonstration of this is through this quote by Dr. Scott Todd (Immunologist at Kansas state University):
Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999:
quote:
The lesson to be learned from the events in Kansas is that science educators everywhere must do a better job of teaching evolution. It must be made clear that the evidence supporting the mechanism of evolution is empirical and proven, but that speciation and natural history are derived from the admittedly weaker evidence of observation. The fact that one cannot reproduce the experiment does not diminish the validity of macro-evolution, but the observed phenomena supporting the theory must be presented more clearly.
Additionally, one must question the interpretation of the observed phenomena and discuss the weaknesses of the model. Honest scientists are far more inspiring than defensive ones who scoff arrogantly at the masses and fear that discussing the problems of macro-evolutionary theory will weaken general acceptance of it. On the contrary, free debate is more likely to encourage the curious to seek solutions. Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably).
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.
Now you see what Dr. Todd really wrote. Now you can see that Dr. Todd was not expressing resistence to recognizing the existence of God -- as was suggested by the creationist who had lifted that quote out of context -- , but rather he was saying the same thing as you yourself did in your opening paragraph:
I have no problem with methodological Naturalism in these terms, as to avoid the god of the gaps fallacy, you have to presuppose a natural cause to any event you encounter unless you have positive proof of otherwise.
Similarly, my signature includes a quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle which says the same thing yet again:
quote:
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
As well as another quote from the conclusion of an article on Gentry's halo "evidence":
quote:
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
In other words, resorting to "God of the Gaps" kills science. Faced with a mystery, we need to work on solving that mystery rather than just throwing up our hands saying "goddidit" and giving up.
Note that he is not talking about if a single positive evidence of God was found, but if all the collection of scientific data was positive evidence of God, you would still had to reject it.
There seems to be this idea that methodological naturalism is so attached to naturalistic philosophies that you cannot take them appart, and so if you take one you have to take the other. But this is false.
As we can now see, that is not what Dr. Todd said, nor did he express attachment to philosophical naturalism but rather the opposite. Your misinterpretation is understandable since it was guided by the creationist misquotation, but now you know better. Now was he talking about "positive evidence of God", but rather all the data pointing to the conclusion of "God", as in "indicating". The reason why we cannot accept such a conclusion when doing scientific work is because doing so would be succumbing to the trap of "God of the Gaps", which you yourself agreed must be avoided.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2009 10:30 PM slevesque has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 133 of 295 (524336)
09-15-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Adminnemooseus
09-15-2009 11:24 PM


Re: Nice message but probably in the wrong topic
The message was directly in reply to NosyNed's needing to know about Thwaites and Awbrey's two-model class. The postscripts were then added to mention two other notable two-model classes.
If it is to be removed, shouldn't at least the first part be retained because it's tied in with NosyNed's implied question?
{I don't clearly see that this message is on or off-topic, but it does seem to be pretty marginal to the topic theme. I thought that the information is more appropriate to the other topic. I have no plans of removing this message from this topic but it probably would be best to pursue this line of discussion at the other topic. Or something like that. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Red note.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-15-2009 11:24 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 134 of 295 (524339)
09-15-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by slevesque
09-15-2009 10:30 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
If you don't like methodological naturalism, don't use it.
Come up with something else. Knock yourself out! Go for it!
But why don't you leave those who do follow methodological naturalism (i.e., science) alone?
If your method, whatever it is, is so superior why do you need to pick on science? Take your method and your results and go forth!
Well, the reason you need to try to destroy science is that science produces results, and those results are counter to revelation and scripture. Science has enormous prestige because it produces those verifiable results. Theology, philosophy, and those other squishy subjects just can't compete.
Hence, the need to destroy science, or to water it down enough so that the squishy subjects can compete. (See, for example, Behe's testimony at Dover concerning his definition of "science." He's not out to strengthen science with that definition...)
I am certainly not against methodological naturalism, since I consider myself 'intelligent' to the extent that I agree with Dr. Adequates view on this. However, I am against naturalism because if he had positive proof of a the supernatural acting in nature, he would reject it because of his belief system.
If there was "positive proof" wouldn't that be observable "evidence," and fitting with what naturalism studies? I mean, if you could prove your religious beliefs there would be no issue, now would there? The problem is that you have no evidence, and no proof. As such, you want to water down or destroy science and the scientific method because they are in your way, and because they come up with the "wrong" answers.
Ay, there's the rub. Science comes up with the wrong answers.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by slevesque, posted 09-15-2009 10:30 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by ochaye, posted 09-16-2009 4:02 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 147 by slevesque, posted 09-16-2009 5:42 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 135 of 295 (524346)
09-16-2009 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Coyote
09-15-2009 11:41 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
quote:
Well, the reason you need to try to destroy science is that science produces results, and those results are counter to revelation and scripture.
Many scientists, including Faraday and Newton, have believed, do believe, in revelation and scripture. Why were they, why are they deceived?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Coyote, posted 09-15-2009 11:41 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by dwise1, posted 09-16-2009 10:32 AM ochaye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024