Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5805 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 76 of 152 (238505)
08-30-2005 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by iano
08-29-2005 2:45 PM


The "I don't know" of the Gaps
Hi iano,
In going public and bypassing the orthodox elements of the scientific community, ID can hope to balance a somewhat uneven fight.
And there is of course a very good reason why it is an uneven fight. It's Science vs Anti-Science. Guess which one scientists should be carrying out! But I suppose the validity of ID is a little bit off-topic.
I agree with you that science and spirutuality have different roles to play and that there are questions that scientific discovery cannot answer on it's own. What I think I disagree with you on is where you can draw that line where the scientific method holds up it's hands, walks away and says "All yours".
I may be wrong, but you seem to be claiming that the gaps in our knowledge can be legitimately labelled with God, just because we can't prove that God doesn't exist, that 'knowledge' that "Goddidit!" should be given just as much creedance as attempts to explain things using empirical evidence. You seem to be basing this on a skewed idea of how science goes about it's business. The beautiful thing about science and the key aspect of it that allows progression is the ability to admit to igorance and the willingness to investigate things further.
Compare this to the stagnating dogma of ID and the other forms of creationism, where everything is 'known' and anything that goes against the 'truth' is ignored. Just try and imagine the state of the world if everyone had this kind of attitude - it scares the hell out of me.
God of the Gaps is not, as you claim, a device to crowbar the Deity out of the equation. It is part of the debate about what should go in those gaps. For example (and almost on topic too ):
ID: The genetic code could not have arisen by chance. God must have done it.
Science: We don't have enough evidence to be confident, but there is some interesting data that suggests that it could have arisen in a step-wise manner. If this was the case then we would expect to see....
So when you say:
And the silence from science in this area is....deafening
You are wrong. It is shouting loud and proud "We don't know!.
You seem to be asking for certain things to be ring-fenced and declared out of bounds for science. My question is, given the history of scientific discovery, when has this ever been a valid position?
Edit: whoops, pressed submit too soon
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 30-08-2005 10:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by iano, posted 08-29-2005 2:45 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 7:57 AM Ooook! has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 77 of 152 (238515)
08-30-2005 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-29-2005 4:52 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
Why is it that lack of scientific knowledge is commonly used as support of theistic philosophy?
I don't use this as a support for anything of the sort. I use the fact the science is completely silent on an explaination for the Laws of Nature to dismantle the Scientism argument which posits God of the Gaps. Science is humble and I admire Science. Scientism is vocal but as we can see in relation to Laws of Nature - the stance is more bluff and bluster than it is one of substance. Scientism, which sits piggy-back style on science and does it such a disservice, is what I am countering.
I repeat. Sciences silence on explaining the reason for the Laws of Nature means ravine-like abysses exist - not little gaps
Miracles not obviously accessible to science) This assumes that your god wants to keep miracles, as well as his very existence, a secret. That makes no sense.
Now your making assumptions about what Gods motivation would be. You wouldn't be the first to demand x,y,z of God in order that he prove his existance. Which if you think about it - is a little ridiculous. Man demanding something from God....
Why hide in the mysterious unknown?
Who said he did? There are millions of people in the world who are more certain of Gods existance that they are the sun will rise tomorrow. This is hardly blind faith. Where did they get this sure knowledge? They didn't lick it off a stone. (the standard response here is to say misguided, deluded, indoctrinated etc so maybe you could think of something fresh )
I can think of one reason why God may not make it obvious to everyone that he exists. If he did that then everyone would have no choice to believe he exists. It's safe to say that one characteristic of humans is that they have free will. They may be influenced by external stuff but at the end of the day, free will and self choice rules. If God then this facility was God given - so why not up to the point of choosing whether to believe in him or not
If there existed anything else why isn’t there evidence of it. Why is it that all we are given are blind assertions and philosophical reasoning to go on?
By evidence you no doubt mean "objective, measurable, empirical evidence" That this is the only evidence that qualifies as evidence and that this is the only way to know anything, is a philosophical position, not an emprically evidenced one. Blind assertion. Scientism in full flight
I don’t see how it’s valid to leap directly from needing more complexity to goddidit. Occams Razor doesn’t prohibit complexity but it does prohibit making excessive assumptions. I maintain that positing god will always be an excessive assumption
But the extra layers of complexity don't bring a solution. Take the Laws of Nature. They are observable phenomenon that science needs to explain. Now start adding layers of complexity as Occams Razor says we must. None suffice. So add more and more and more until they do. You'll end up at God - or else stop adding layers at a point which provides no answers and kick the ball into touch with "we don't know yet" Silence. They're the option: God or Silence. Not Scientism
If natural, scientific explanations are not sought after then mankind’s knowledge will stagnate.
I never said science should stop. I said Scientism should stop presuming that which it cannot. When it hits areas where it can't go further then science will be stopped automatically. There's plenty of other areas to investigate and presumably it will be stopped by mystery there too. But to say Science can or will explain it all is something it patently can't do - so lets not pretend it can.
Questions will still remain at the end of all the spokes that science gets to. Why avoid dealing with them now? They exist already and they aren't going to go away.
If I want answers about the natural universe then I will turn to the tool that was designed for that purpose and has the best track record in answering the questions accurately?
The best thing to do. But what about the areas where no answers exist and there is no reason to expect there to be. Belief that natural is all there is thus science is all that is required is a philsopical position - not a scientific one. Scientism.
I think I will reserve admiration for institutions more deserving. The separation of church and state is too important to let the likes of ID erode it’s virtues. ID’s thinly veiled creationist motivation can not be allowed to be given support by the state. This would open the door down the slippery slope that allows our own brand of Taliban political power. If private schools want to support ID then so be it. Just keep it far away from the real science taught in public school lest America fall farther away from the scientific and technological dominance it once enjoyed in the world community.
More philosophy - to which you are entitled. And to which I am sure you permit others to be entitled. ID going public - it's still a cunning plan you'd have to agree

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-29-2005 4:52 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-30-2005 9:34 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 78 of 152 (238526)
08-30-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Ooook!
08-30-2005 5:19 AM


Re: The "I don't know" of the Gaps
Hi Ooook. Thank Scientism that you haven't got a name like DominionSeraph or Primordial Egg...I get tired of typing them out!
ooook writes:
I may be wrong, but you seem to be claiming that the gaps in our knowledge can be legitimately labelled with God, just because we can't prove that God doesn't exist, that 'knowledge' that "Goddidit!" should be given just as much creedance as attempts to explain things using empirical evidence.
I'm saying that what is natural can be explained scientifically - whether science knows how to do it at this moment or not. And what isn't a result of natural processes will not be explained by science. That much has been explained by science doesn't divert us from the fact that in many areas it has nothing to say. Modern science has been around about 400 years. There is no objective scienctific comment to be made about the reason and origin of the laws of nature for instance. Nor where the mind has it's source, Nor how life began etc. My stance is against Scientism which makes the unfounded statement that science will, eventually be able to explain everything and that no other avenue needs to be considered. I have no argument with science.
You seem to be basing this on a skewed idea of how science goes about it's business. The beautiful thing about science and the key aspect of it that allows progression is the ability to admit to igorance and the willingness to investigate things further.
I understand that but many don't share your view and presume that all that has to happen IS further investigation then science WILL explain it all - eventually. There is no more reason to suppose Scientism is any better an explaination than Goddidit for stuff we don't know now yet.
To reason that science hasn't found any evidence for God thus no weight should be given it as an explaination for the unknown is circular reasoning: science deals with the natural not the supernatural. It cannot use lack of natural evidence to comment on supernatural evidence. That is a realm that doesn't belong to science - yet Scientism purports to be able to comment on this realm too - "it doesn't exist". It 'achieves' this by raising "objective, empirical evidence" above all other means of knowing - without of course, giving anybody a reason why this should be taken to be the case. Circular reasoning again. In doing so they dismiss the views of millions of people, many of whom are as intelligent, critical and objective as any scientist. Scientism is an assumed position that is arrived at by faith/belief - not empirical evidence
Note too that as current gaps get filled by science, many more gaps open in our knowledge. Science has more questions to answer now than when it started out. We only know a fraction of what it appears there could be to know. And that doesn't look like changing anytime soon.
You seem to be asking for certain things to be ring-fenced and declared out of bounds for science. My question is, given the history of scientific discovery, when has this ever been a valid position?
I'm not asking for ring-fencing. I'm asking for Scientism adherents to put up empirical evidence as to why empiricism rules ok - without using a pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstrap argument. Or accept that their belief system is precisely that and then take a more humble, realistic and scientific "we don't know" position - as opposed to the more presumptive "we don't know - yet" position - for which there is no objective basis.
Hopefully the above will clarify that this is what I mean
This message has been edited by iano, 30-Aug-2005 12:59 PM

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Ooook!, posted 08-30-2005 5:19 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2005 8:14 AM iano has replied
 Message 89 by Ooook!, posted 08-31-2005 6:12 AM iano has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 152 (238532)
08-30-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by iano
08-30-2005 7:57 AM


Re: The "I don't know" of the Gaps
To reason that science hasn't found any evidence for God thus no weight should be given it as an explaination for the unknown is circular reasoning: science deals with the natural not the supernatural. It cannot use lack of natural evidence to comment on supernatural evidence.
It's not logically coherent for there to be a supernatural realm that can still affect or influence the natural one. If it can, then it was part of the natural realm all along. But that's not really the topic here, I guess.
There is no more reason to suppose Scientism is any better an explaination than Goddidit for stuff we don't know now yet.
Well, sure there is, if you accept the basic effecacy of induction. If you don't, which is an entirely reasonable position (since the only evidence for the validity of induction is inductive), you reject all of science altogether.
I mean, it's up to you. If induction is to be accepted as valid, and you're going to accept the findings of science which are inductive, then induction also informs us that scientific knowledge is likely going to expand, not contract, indefinately, out to the very limits of what can be known.
It 'achieves' this by raising "objective, empirical evidence" above all other means of knowing - without of course, giving anybody a reason why this should be taken to be the case.
I seem to recall giving you a reason, many months ago, in another thread. You had no answer but swore that you would give it much thought.
Now you appear confident enough to pose the question again, so either you figured it out and I missed it, or you're hoping no one will remember that you were unable to successfully challenge the superiority of empiricism.
I'm asking for Scientism adherents to put up empirical evidence as to why empiricism rules
Show me someone who rails about the evils of "scientism" and I'll show you someone who took a philosophy of science class when they should have taken a science class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 7:57 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 8:58 AM crashfrog has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 80 of 152 (238544)
08-30-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
08-30-2005 8:14 AM


Re: The "I don't know" of the Gaps
iano writes:
I'm asking for Scientism adherents to put up empirical evidence as to why empiricism rules
Show me someone who rails about the evils of "scientism" and I'll show you someone who took a philosophy of science class when they should have taken a science class.
Hi there Crashfrog:
So you'd agree that the statement "empiricism (or 'reason' for that matter) is the only way to know anything" is a philosophical statement. Like, it is not that is can be falsified or verified).

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2005 8:14 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2005 3:55 PM iano has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 152 (238551)
08-30-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by iano
08-30-2005 6:50 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
Why is it that lack of scientific knowledge is commonly used as support of theistic philosophy?
I don't use this as a support for anything of the sort. I use the fact the science is completely silent on an explaination for the Laws of Nature to dismantle the Scientism argument which posits God of the Gaps. Science is humble and I admire Science. Scientism is vocal but as we can see in relation to Laws of Nature - the stance is more bluff and bluster than it is one of substance. Scientism, which sits piggy-back style on science and does it such a disservice, is what I am countering.
I repeat. Sciences silence on explaining the reason for the Laws of Nature means ravine-like abysses exist - not little gaps
I’m not disagreeing that our scientific knowledge is still infantile. I am disagreeing about labeling the gaps with godidit. You seem to like to claim that since science can’t deal with the supernatural it can’t make any statements about supernatural entities. This is true. You then take it a step too far when you argue that your supernatural entity can affect the physical universe. If this is to be the case then there should be evidence of this interaction. (Getting a little back on topic) The OP spoke about what will appear to be man’s ability to create new kinds of life. This relates to the argument at hand because a common theistic argument against evolution is that your god created all the kinds of animals via special creation and not evolution (one of the fundamental EvC debates). If this is true then man creating a new kind of life form flies in the face of special creation and definitively fills another gap. It has to be apparent that this is how it will always be if gaps are to be filled with goddidit instead of We don’t know — yet. I maintain that the later is far more reasonable and is supported, not only historically, but by every advancement science makes every day. To deny this is denying reality at this point.
Miracles not obviously accessible to science) This assumes that your god wants to keep miracles, as well as his very existence, a secret. That makes no sense.
Now your making assumptions about what Gods motivation would be. You wouldn't be the first to demand x,y,z of God in order that he prove his existance. Which if you think about it - is a little ridiculous. Man demanding something from God....
This is a valid observation. Obviously your god, if he/she exists, can affect the physical universe. If this is the case then leaving definitive evidence should be child’s play. The conspicuous absence of such definitive evidence means that you god’s silence is deafening in the matter of his/her own existence. All we are offered to go on is blind faith and gaps. Since science is taking away gaps all the time (as illustrated in the OP) science and theistic philosophy remain in friction. The poster child is evolution right now, but there are many sciences that contradict creation, not just one theory.
Why hide in the mysterious unknown?
Who said he did? There are millions of people in the world who are more certain of Gods existance that they are the sun will rise tomorrow. This is hardly blind faith. Where did they get this sure knowledge? They didn't lick it off a stone. (the standard response here is to say misguided, deluded, indoctrinated etc so maybe you could think of something fresh )
Hmmm how about inculcation? You may want to consider that there are standard responses because they are true.
I can think of one reason why God may not make it obvious to everyone that he exists. If he did that then everyone would have no choice to believe he exists. It's safe to say that one characteristic of humans is that they have free will. They may be influenced by external stuff but at the end of the day, free will and self choice rules. If God then this facility was God given - so why not up to the point of choosing whether to believe in him or not
Or maybe is was part of a deal with the devil himself laying down the rules in the fight for our souls! The point is that without evidence then all this is only more speculation. It also illustrates how people can still make choices no matter how much evidence, or lack thereof, there is about something.
If there existed anything else why isn’t there evidence of it. Why is it that all we are given are blind assertions and philosophical reasoning to go on?
By evidence you no doubt mean "objective, measurable, empirical evidence" That this is the only evidence that qualifies as evidence and that this is the only way to know anything, is a philosophical position, not an emprically evidenced one. Blind assertion. Scientism in full flight
While objective, measurable, empirical evidence is not the only way to know anything. I will maintain that it is the best, most reasonable way. This is why it should be given more weight over philosophy in the matters of the physical universe and should be exhausted as an option before positing some supernatural explanation.
I don’t see how it’s valid to leap directly from needing more complexity to goddidit. Occams Razor doesn’t prohibit complexity but it does prohibit making excessive assumptions. I maintain that positing god will always be an excessive assumption
But the extra layers of complexity don't bring a solution. Take the Laws of Nature. They are observable phenomenon that science needs to explain. Now start adding layers of complexity as Occams Razor says we must. None suffice. So add more and more and more until they do. You'll end up at God - or else stop adding layers at a point which provides no answers and kick the ball into touch with "we don't know yet" Silence. They're the option: God or Silence. Not Scientism
How is this reasonable? Science advances every day. With each passing day our knowledge grows, new tools are invented to seek more information, more questions are answered. You have to realize this and at least acknowledge the reality that science is constantly advancing and filling the gaps. In choosing your god or silence we would be throwing in the towel. This can only serve to stagnate our advancement and keep us ignorant.
If natural, scientific explanations are not sought after then mankind’s knowledge will stagnate.
I never said science should stop. I said Scientism should stop presuming that which it cannot. When it hits areas where it can't go further then science will be stopped automatically. There's plenty of other areas to investigate and presumably it will be stopped by mystery there too. But to say Science can or will explain it all is something it patently can't do - so lets not pretend it can.
You are talking about what science can’t do yet and asserting that we should stop there and either posit goddidit or remain silent. This isn’t how it works in reality. It is the purpose of science to keep advancing and chisel away at those mysteries. Positing a god or remaining silent is to give up.
Questions will still remain at the end of all the spokes that science gets to. Why avoid dealing with them now? They exist already and they aren't going to go away.
Or consider the possibility that it is only you that believes they will not go away. Many have held this position. Many have already been proven wrong.
If I want answers about the natural universe then I will turn to the tool that was designed for that purpose and has the best track record in answering the questions accurately?
The best thing to do. But what about the areas where no answers exist and there is no reason to expect there to be. Belief that natural is all there is thus science is all that is required is a philsopical position - not a scientific one. Scientism.
Thus far this position has not been proven wrong whereas positing goddidit has on many occasions.
I think I will reserve admiration for institutions more deserving. The separation of church and state is too important to let the likes of ID erode it’s virtues. ID’s thinly veiled creationist motivation can not be allowed to be given support by the state. This would open the door down the slippery slope that allows our own brand of Taliban political power. If private schools want to support ID then so be it. Just keep it far away from the real science taught in public school lest America fall farther away from the scientific and technological dominance it once enjoyed in the world community.
More philosophy - to which you are entitled. And to which I am sure you permit others to be entitled. ID going public - it's still a cunning plan you'd have to agree
I can think of many more adjectives and cunning isn’t high on the list. ;-)
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-30-2005 09:46 AM
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-30-2005 09:47 AM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 6:50 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 3:58 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 152 (238637)
08-30-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by iano
08-30-2005 8:58 AM


So you'd agree that the statement "empiricism (or 'reason' for that matter) is the only way to know anything" is a philosophical statement. Like, it is not that is can be falsified or verified).
It could certainly be falsified; you would simply have to provide an alternate epistomology that's as good as or superior to empiricism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 8:58 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 3:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 83 of 152 (238638)
08-30-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-30-2005 9:34 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
I’m not disagreeing that our scientific knowledge is still infantile. I am disagreeing about labeling the gaps with godidit.
I don't say label the gap goddidit. I say don't label the gap before you have a label to put on it. Scientism labels the gap before the science has got there.
You seem to like to claim that since science can’t deal with the supernatural it can’t make any statements about supernatural entities. This is true. You then take it a step too far when you argue that your supernatural entity can affect the physical universe. If this is to be the case then there should be evidence of this interaction.
Hmmm. Any evidence put up would be met with the "we dont know" "Occams Razor" "The tentitive theory explains it sufficiently for now" stance. These are philosophical positions which are all aimed to support the other unfounded unverifiable/unfalsifiable position: "nature/objectivity is all there is"
The OP spoke about what will appear to be man’s ability to create new kinds of life. This relates to the argument at hand because a common theistic argument against evolution is that your god created all the kinds of animals via special creation and not evolution (one of the fundamental EvC debates). If this is true then man creating a new kind of life form flies in the face of special creation and definitively fills another gap.
You wish When God created life he created the building blocks of it then set about configuring them in different ways. Analysing an existing design to understand what the building blocks are then rearranging them to form other life forms is, relatively speaking, like falling off a log. Nope to fill in that this gap, a genuinely new form of life which doesn't just manipulate pre-existing design elements would be needed.
One couldn't even applaud the obvious intelligence and sheer effort that would go into achieving a half decent copy - given that a blind, random process is supposed to have done it all in the first place
I must look at some of the other gaps you say are filled if this is your idea of 'filled'
It has to be apparent that this is how it will always be if gaps are to be filled with goddidit instead of We don’t know — yet. I maintain that the later is far more reasonable and is supported, not only historically, but by every advancement science makes every day. To deny this is denying reality at this point.
Think for just a few moments. Really stop and think for a second or two. If God did do it all. Would he be so big that science-is-to-God what ant-is-to-ocean-liner.
In trying to pull God down to sciences size your forgetting just what God would be like. If he existed he would be way too big for you to get your head around unaided - so you shouldn't expect to know either way with the relatively puny tool called science. If you wanted to know evidence, other tools, suitable for measuring would have to be developed. But of course, if one doesn't want or doesn't see the need for it then fine. "Seek and you will find" can be rewritten "don't seek and you won't". This applies to God as well as science (edit: which, in the case of God existing, would only be investigating how God did it, not God himself, nor why he did it. And theres not a bit of harm in that. God is an addition to science - not a replacement of science)
This message has been edited by iano, 30-Aug-2005 09:24 PM

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-30-2005 9:34 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-30-2005 4:47 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 84 of 152 (238639)
08-30-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
08-30-2005 3:55 PM


I am here to learn Crashfrog. So go ahead...
I will take the arguement back if you do too...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2005 3:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2005 7:13 PM iano has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 152 (238643)
08-30-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by iano
08-30-2005 3:58 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
I’m not disagreeing that our scientific knowledge is still infantile. I am disagreeing about labeling the gaps with godidit.
I don't say label the gap goddidit. I say don't label the gap before you have a label to put on it. Scientism labels the gap before the science has got there.
Aren’t you? Apparently, if you have reasoned yourself a gap that you believe science isn’t going to be able to answer then you are arguing that it is equally valid to posit goddidit instead of we don’t know — yet. The problem is that you are not qualified to know what science can and can’t answer. If it lies in the realm of the natural universe then it is fair game for science.
Ancient man could not fathom that we would one day start to actually figure out how man came to be. Here we are thousands of years later debating that very issue. Like the heliocentric solar system, it’s only a matter of time before the evidence for evolution and common ancestry is accepted as fact by even the theistic philosopher.
You seem to like to claim that since science can’t deal with the supernatural it can’t make any statements about supernatural entities. This is true. You then take it a step too far when you argue that your supernatural entity can affect the physical universe. If this is to be the case then there should be evidence of this interaction.
Hmmm. Any evidence put up would be met with the "we dont know" "Occams Razor" "The tentitive theory explains it sufficiently for now" stance. These are philosophical positions which are all aimed to support the other unfounded unverifiable/unfalsifiable position: "nature/objectivity is all there is"
Your god could produce an unlimited number of miracles that we could scientifically measure. It should be child’s play to such a big and powerful entity right? Like falling off a log? Then why are they so conspicuously absent? Move a mountain, move stars to display a blimp-like message across the night sky I DID IT ALL!, LOVE GOD. There could be evidence offered up at any given time that would support the idea of the supernatural. One has to start to question why we have none. Nothing but assertions of faith, promises of heaven, and threats of hell. Why?
The OP spoke about what will appear to be man’s ability to create new kinds of life. This relates to the argument at hand because a common theistic argument against evolution is that your god created all the kinds of animals via special creation and not evolution (one of the fundamental EvC debates). If this is true then man creating a new kind of life form flies in the face of special creation and definitively fills another gap.
You wish When God created life he created the building blocks of it then set about configuring them in different ways. Analysing an existing design to understand what the building blocks are then rearranging them to form other life forms is, relatively speaking, like falling off a log. Nope to fill in that this gap, a genuinely new form of life which doesn't just manipulate pre-existing design elements would be needed.
One couldn't even applaud the obvious intelligence and sheer effort that would go into achieving a half decent copy - given that a blind, random process is supposed to have done it all in the first place
I must look at some of the other gaps you say are filled if this is your idea of 'filled'
You miss the point. Although I don’t know what your particular beliefs are, many creationists believe that your god created each kind of life separately and distinctly. They assert that evolution is not true because it can’t make a new kind or produce macroevolution. The OP illustrated that new kinds can be made just by varying genes and without the intervention of your god. This shows that enough genetic variance will produce a new kind of life. Therefore it takes away the gap of we don’t know that new ‘kinds’ can be created just by mutations, etc. This shows that god is not necessary to create a new kind and evolution can indeed create new kinds. These scientists are making stuff that certainly weren’t on the ark.
It has to be apparent that this is how it will always be if gaps are to be filled with goddidit instead of We don’t know — yet. I maintain that the later is far more reasonable and is supported, not only historically, but by every advancement science makes every day. To deny this is denying reality at this point.
Think for just a few moments. Really stop and think for a second or two. If God did do it all. Would he be so big that science-is-to-God what ant-is-to-ocean-liner.
In trying to pull God down to sciences size your forgetting just what God would be like. If he existed he would be way too big for you to get your head around unaided - so you shouldn't expect to know either way with the relatively puny tool called science.
They why hasn’t your god produced such elementary evidence of his/her existence so that this so called puny tool can detect it. It should be infinitely easy for an omni-x entity right?
If you wanted to know evidence, other tools, suitable for measuring would have to be developed. But of course, if one doesn't want or doesn't see the need for it then fine.
What’s wrong with the tools your god allegedly gave us? Why can’t he/she furnish a little positive evidence we can measure? What’s with the secrecy? Who does that benefit?
"Seek and you will find" can be rewritten "don't seek and you won't". This applies to God as well as science (which would only be investigating how God did it, not God himself, nor why he did it)
I see plenty of seekers. Just no evidence to be found.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 3:58 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by iano, posted 08-31-2005 6:04 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 86 of 152 (238662)
08-30-2005 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by iano
08-30-2005 3:59 PM


I am here to learn Crashfrog. So go ahead...
I will take the arguement back if you do too...
I'm sorry? I don't understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 3:59 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by iano, posted 08-31-2005 5:14 AM crashfrog has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 87 of 152 (238833)
08-31-2005 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
08-30-2005 7:13 PM


Crashfrog writes:
It could certainly be falsified; you would simply have to provide an alternate epistomology that's as good as or superior to empiricism.
The world and its brother seems to disagree with you. (Objectivity/reason/empiricism uber alles). If this can be falsified then it needs something to falsify it with...rather that the plain statement that it can be falsified (in which case I could get away with the plain statement: "Goddidit", more often that I do). I was asking could you provide the 'something'.

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2005 7:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2005 7:41 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 88 of 152 (238846)
08-31-2005 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-30-2005 4:47 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
The problem is that you are not qualified to know what science can and can’t answer. If it lies in the realm of the natural universe then it is fair game for science.
This one can be put to bed if you want. If I post quotes with references from acknowledged non-theist scientists who talk about what they feel science can't discover about the natural world, would that be enough for you to agree that there are natural limits past which science itself doesn't think it is qualified to go.
it’s only a matter of time before the evidence for evolution and common ancestry is accepted as fact by even the theistic philosopher.
This is scientism again not science. Saying it "will be discovered" because it "has been discovered" is extrapolating a line into the future without knowing what can be discovered that will alter the path of the line. That you drive around 5000 blind bends and don't meet an oncoming car on your side of the road says nothing about the next bend. This is faith, not science.
Your god could produce an unlimited number of miracles that we could scientifically measure. It should be child’s play to such a big and powerful entity right? Like falling off a log? Then why are they so conspicuously absent?
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: NO GOD. Your presumption is based on what YOU think God should or shouldn't do. Your demand is that he provides evidence on YOUR terms. But again, if you consider what he would be you would no doubt agree that his way of revealing himself (presuming again that he indeed wanted to) might well be done on HIS terms not yours. I asked before if you would consider what God would be like - if he existed. If you carried out this one minute exercise you may have noticed your jaw dropping onto the keyboard. The word 'humility' may have flashed across your skull.
Stop trying to reduce God to your size for a moment and consider that if he was able to make a logical, ordered and predictable world he was able to do other things as well which you may not be as privy to. Especially if you don't want to be.
You miss the point. Although I don’t know what your particular beliefs are, many creationists believe that your god created each kind of life separately and distinctly.
If you were to finish the creationist sentence then we may be able to close this issue. "...separately and distinctly out of material he created: atoms, proteins, amino acids, DNA etc"
That's Creation. The designer Created materials then fashioned them into everything. That I can take a tree and turn it into a table doesn't mean I've closed a gap. Creating vs "creating". Your comparing apples and pears here.
The most complex electron microscope in the world is powerless to remove the spark plug from my motorcycle engine. It's a question of applying the appropriate tool. Science is not a tool for investigating everything. God can be investigated - and by using core elements of the scientific style method too. First you clear out all preconceptions about God that you may have picked up (sterilising the equipment). Then you form a hypothesis of God that fits the obeservations that you can make. Based on that you deduce some tools you will need and go excavating. After you get some evidence you can possibly check the various Gods to see which one (if any) fit your theory. If you find one that fits the theory well then you go do some further investigation etc
If you were to decided to form a theory and go looking the one thing that should strike you early on is what it is you are looking for. Should you find it, you can expect to be humbled. If your traveling towards a destination it would seem sensible that the clothes you use to travel in are suitable for the journey. Humility would seem like sensible clothes to wear - both for the journey and the destination (should you get there). It's not like you would be influncing the data by being humble - it is good scientific practive afterall....
I see plenty of seekers. Just no evidence to be found.
If they look in the wrong place and don't use the correct tools then it is no surprise. There are millions who have satisfied themselves. And they ain't all stupid, ignorant, indoctrinated people either.
Take this from Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor of England (it's the very highest level judicial role - people who hold it are highly qualified in what constitutes evidence.)
"You do not get out of your philosophical troubles arising out of the fact of evil by rejecting God, For, as I have tried to point out before, the real problem is not the problem of evil, but the problem of good, not the problem of cruelty and selfishness, but the problem of kindness and generosity, not the problem of ugliness but the problem of beauty.
If the world is really the hopeless and meaningless jumble which one has to believe it to be once we reject our value judgements as nothing more that emotional noises, with nothing more in the way of objective truth than a certain biological survival value for the species rather than the individual, evil then presents no difficulty because it does not exist. We must expect to be knocked around a bit in the world which consists only of atoms, moleculs and strange particles. But how then, does it come about that we go through life on assumptions which are perfectly contrary to the facts, that we love our wives and our families, thrill with pleasure at the sight of a little bird dressed in green and black and white, that we rage at injustice inflicted on innocent victims, honour our martyrs, reward our heros, and even occasionally, with difficulty, forgive our enemies and do good to those who persecute us and despitefully use us?. No. Light is the problem, not darkness. It is seeing, not blindness...It is love not callousness. The thing we have to explain in the world is the positive, not the negative. It is this which led me to God in the first place
(From his book 'The door wherein I went' Collins P41-42)

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-30-2005 4:47 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-31-2005 9:27 AM iano has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5805 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 89 of 152 (238850)
08-31-2005 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by iano
08-30-2005 7:57 AM


Re: The "I don't know" of the Gaps
Hi iano
Thank Scientism that you haven't got a name like DominionSeraph or Primordial Egg...I get tired of typing them out!
I know what you mean. For a four fingered typist like me, cut ’n’ paste is definitely a good friend .
Note too that as current gaps get filled by science, many more gaps open in our knowledge. Science has more questions to answer now than when it started out. We only know a fraction of what it appears there could be to know. And that doesn't look like changing anytime soon.
This demonstrates what I see as the main problem if you’re going to have a consistent position on the place of science and the supernatural. According to you, it is perfectly fine to cram God into gaps in our knowledge and then, when science provides a satisfactory explanation, you just move onto the next gap: no problem. This seems like a rather odd, changeable ‘knowledge’ to me.
I really don’t mind if people want to make themselves feel warm and fuzzy inside by taking comfort in this exponentially expanding collection of gaps. The problem arises when people then use this ‘truth’ to attack the progress of science or to justify otherwise unjustifiable actions.
Or accept that their belief system is precisely that and then take a more humble, realistic and scientific "we don't know" position - as opposed to the more presumptive "we don't know - yet" position - for which there is no objective basis.
What’s wrong with saying I don’t know — but I might do someday and being happy with a positive spin on ignorance? Why do you need to postulate some weird kind of supernatural knowledge?
Besides it’s all very well claiming that God is non-empirical and outside the realm of the natural, but people claiming to ‘know’ have a very real effect on the measurable, natural world. Whether it’s in the science class-room or the Oval Office, believers in the ‘truth’ have a direct influence on people’s lives. IMO, if there is no evidence for something you have to think long and hard about any actions or beliefs based on it.
We don’t let this kind of thinking effect us in any other aspects of life — religion gets special dispensation. If someone claims that he broke the 100m world record but he can’t show you any evidence —he just knows it — would you give him the award? ID’s arguments about abiogenesis and the all encompassing laws of nature amount to saying: I know! Just trust me on that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 7:57 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by iano, posted 08-31-2005 10:47 AM Ooook! has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 152 (238887)
08-31-2005 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by iano
08-31-2005 5:14 AM


If this can be falsified then it needs something to falsify it with..
Huh? Why would this be the case? You're the one who believes the statement is false, not me.
I don't understand what principle causes you to believe that I'm under some obligation to argue your position for you. The statement I made was falsifiable, I showed you how, but it's not false. You will not be able to meet the falsification criteria.
But that doesn't mean there is no criteria. I told you what it would be, after all. It's your job to try to meet it, not mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by iano, posted 08-31-2005 5:14 AM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024