Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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:   Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?
John
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 67 (36045)
04-01-2003 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Mister Pamboli
04-01-2003 9:05 PM


Re: SE versus ME
quote:
Thus, for example, a Deist could hold a metaphysical view that the existence of matter was entirely dependent on God, and that the reasons for matter's existence are to be found in His Will, without for a moment dropping a naturalistic belief in how matter interacts.
... very similar to the way Bishop Berkeley considered things, at least in respect to the world-- Berkeley thought the world was mind-- being entirely dependent upon God, but otherwise functioning naturalistically. Just a note.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-01-2003 9:05 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 47 of 67 (36051)
04-02-2003 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Joralex
04-01-2003 8:25 PM


Re: SE versus ME
The core of the issue does indeed seem to be where the bondary between the S.E and the M.E. lie.
Since you have asserted that there is no dispute between S.E. and creationism and that the dispute between creationism and evolution is not science versus religion but a clash of metaphysics it follows that you hold that ANY part of evolution that contradicts mainstream creationist views is part of M.E. However you refuse to support these claims.
So let us go back to the issue you refuse to address - the ancestry of whales from land mammals. By inference it appears that you regard this as part of M.E. but I see no reasonable justification for considering it anything other than part of S.E.
Dp you wish to accept that this is part of S.E. ? or explain why you believe it to be part of M.E. ?
Or would you rather go on evading the issue ?
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Joralex, posted 04-01-2003 8:25 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Joralex, posted 04-02-2003 6:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 67 (36076)
04-02-2003 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Joralex
04-01-2003 8:25 PM


Re: SE versus ME
Hi Joralex,
Thanks for your reply.
Quetzal wrote : "... Again, I want to approach the question from the science, vice metaphysics side. Where are the limits to "science"? After that, we can see whether or not evolution is within the realm of science or strays into the realm of metaphysics."
Joralex replies: I'm not trying to avoid your question(s) but from the above (bolded) I gather that you are missing the fundamental point here. There is a SE and it is definitely within the realm of science. Anyone that knows what they're talking about - naturalists, creationists, and Vulcans included - will agree to there being a bona fide SE. I say again, there is an 'evolution' that unquestionably is within the realm of science.
But that's not the point nor the source of the controversy.
On the contrary, that is precisely the point I’m attempting to arrive at. In order to substantiate your assertion, we need to establish exactly where the demarcation is located between the SE and ME. To do that, we need to define precisely what constitutes science — by default, anything left over ascribed to evolutionary theory is ME. Okay?
Feel free to correct me but attributes of science include observability, testability, and "falsifiability". That last one is far more elusive than most people know thus the quotation marks. What I'm getting at is that the SE is far exceeded - beyond the realm of science and into the realm of a metaphysic - as soon as it becomes an operational model for the naturalistic metaphysic.
Well, I may not correct you, but I would like to examine your criteria before accepting them.
1. observability: I’ll accept this if you consider observability to mean that the event under study, or evidence of the occurrence of the event, can be observed and explained. If the phenomenon cannot be reproduced through controlled conditions, natural evidence of the event's occurrence must be available for investigation. I would say that detectability (whether trend, data point, or whatever), would be a more appropriate term than observability. We can detect electrons and the action of gravity, we can’t observe them directly. We can detect historical occurrences in a similar fashion.
2. testability: This criteria would seem to be self explanatory, and is basically a restatement of my criteria #3 from the OP: It must be testable with reference to the empirical world. As I explained in that post,
Point 3 requires that observational testing be able to be employed to confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis. This can be done either through direct observation, experimental control of variables, or through showing that the consequences or results that would be expected if a hypothesis were true do in fact obtain.
Similar to observation, however, this can NOT be taken to mean that the results of direct experimentation are the only acceptable form of science. The objection here goes for any historical science where the end state is known, but the initial conditions are not. In this case you test the hypothesis by predicting what will be found, based on known natural laws or processes. If examples are found, then the hypothesis is strengthened. If none are found, or disconfirming evidence is found, then the hypothesis is probably wrong.
As a subset or corollary of testability, the test, whatever it is, must be replicable. An independent observer, under the same conditions and circumstances, must be able to achieve the same results. If I predict the next roll of a pair of dice, you need to demand that I repeat the feat before accepting that I can predict the future. Alternatively, if a phenomenon can be the product of a coincidence, the phenomenon must be replicated by someone else under the same conditions before coincidence can be rejected as an explanation. If coincidence IS the explanation, then the results will not be replicated.
3. falsifiability: I am unclear as to why you find falsifiability to be elusive. I suppose in a strict Popplerian sense it might be, but in the sense I explained it in the OP the idea has merit as a way to differentiate science from not-science. If there is no possible way of falsifying a hypothesis, either because it is ambiguous or because it contains unstated assumptions (the multiple out), then the hypothesis is not scientific.
Do you agree or disagree with my expansion of your criteria?
Joralex writes:
Plainly : the naturalist must have a mechanism with which to explain the observable facts. The Christian has the same requirement (and our ultimate answer is God - science serves only a minor role).
Some Christians hold this, many (probably the majority) do not. I agree, however, that the role of science is to develop hypotheses and theories (models) of the observable world that seek to explain those observations.
That naturalistic mechanism, if you give it some thought, can only be one : the evolutionary mechanism. Unless one is to assume the spontaneous emergence of life, diversity and complexity then there has to be something that made these things possible. For the naturalist that something is 'evolution' and this 'evolution' replaces the creative/supportive role that God has for the Christian. This is a metaphysical role, not a scientific one.
This is a foundationless assertion. It also presents a false dichotomy — you are presenting the case as though it were either/or. There are more than two positions contained here, just as there are more that two possible interpretations for the emergence of life, diversity and complexity. Finally, you have not provided any supporting argument for the assertion that evolution somehow replaces God.
You do pose an extremely interesting and profound question : "where are the limits of 'science'?" On this I'll just say that long ago I wondered about that question myself and this helped me to finally 'get it'.
Really? What was this that helped you to get it? If you know or can describe the limits of science, then that would be particularly helpful in the context of this discussion.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Joralex, posted 04-01-2003 8:25 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 67 (36130)
04-02-2003 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by PaulK
04-02-2003 1:27 AM


Evading the issue?
"Since you have asserted that there is no dispute between S.E. and creationism..."
That's because there isn't.
"... and that the dispute between creationism and evolution is not science versus religion but a clash of metaphysics..."
Not the dispute between 'creationism and evolution', but rather the dispute between creationism and the metaphysic of evolution. It's very important to get the terms straight.
"... it follows that you hold that ANY part of evolution that contradicts mainstream creationist views is part of M.E."
The essence of what you're saying is correct but the details and application are difficult. For example, I surmise that you would agree that 'natural selection' is a "part of evolution". Yet, natural selection doesn't contradict creationism at all.
So, what are we to interpret by "a part of evolution"? Also, what do you mean by "contradict"? The SE doesn't 'contradict' creationism in any way since the SE is composed of objective facts and ideas/concepts/theories founded on those facts. It is the interpretation of those facts via the naturalistic worldview that generates the evolutionary paradigm.
"However you refuse to support these claims."
I do? What then are my umpteen previous posts doing? The fact that I don't address certain posts may be due to several reasons such as :
1. I have limited time (as I'm sure you do also).
2. I find the point being brought up uninteresting/irrelevant.
3. I find other points more interesting/relevant.
4. Combining 1, 2 and 3 entails that I am forced to be selective.
"So let us go back to the issue you refuse to address - the ancestry of whales from land mammals. By inference it appears that you regard this as part of M.E. but I see no reasonable justification for considering it anything other than part of S.E."
Here's a perfect example of a # 2. Briefly let me say why I find the topic of "whale evolution" a complete waste of everyone's time : there is a vast number of unknowns; the 'evidence' is scarce and very much controversial; there is a great deal of conjecture interwoven into what very little is known; and, last but not least, there is already a presupposition that whales evolved from land animals - GIGO.
Look, let's not waste any more time, please. It's really very simple : I provided a synopsis of the ME. When you speak of 'evolution', are you solely promoting the study of changes in allele frequencies in populations? If you are then we have no dispute. BUT, if you are promoting the ME (as in the synopsis I provided) then you are promoting a metaphysic (i.e., NOT a science) that happens to clash with my own metaphysic (Christianity). Only then would there be a dispute.
So, which is it?
"Do you wish to accept that this is part of S.E. ? or explain why you believe it to be part of M.E. ?"
Are you referring to "whale evolution from land mammals"? If so, I've already that answered above. In case you missed it, NOT a part of the SE.
"Or would you rather go on evading the issue ?"
I see no "issue" - only an 'pseudo-issue' based on misconceptions.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2003 1:27 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 04-02-2003 8:21 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2003 2:29 AM Joralex has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 67 (36136)
04-02-2003 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Mister Pamboli
04-01-2003 9:05 PM


SE versus ME
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I'm getting at is that the SE is far exceeded - beyond the realm of science and into the realm of a metaphysic - as soon as it becomes an operational model for the naturalistic metaphysic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You are saying that the operational model (whatever that is) for a metaphysic is a metaphysic?"
You appear to be mystified by certain concepts that I'm employing here. Watch : you are undoubtedly familiar with "philosophical naturalism" (PN). PN is a purely philosophical position. Then of course there is "methodological naturalism" (MN). MN is an operational formulation of PN.
In a similar sense, the evolutionary mechanism represents the operational model in which the naturalistic metaphysic finds its scientific support. But there's more...
Your statement displays confusion (hopefully not sarcasm) and this confusion is understandable. What happens is that there may exist (and in this case definitely does exist) feedback between the philosophical and the operational aspects. Hence the two (evolution and naturalism) "feed" off of each other and, as you say, a metaphysic (operational model) is supporting another metaphysic (naturalism) and vice-versa.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plainly : the naturalist must have a mechanism with which to explain the observable facts. The Christian has the same requirement (and our ultimate answer is God - science serves only a minor role).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A mechanism to explain what observable facts - that is the problem you are not addressing.
One could quite easily hold a view about the interactions of matter, which could be scientific, highly speculative and naturalistic. However that is not metaphysics. Metaphysics is only marginally concerned with the issue of how matter behaves - it is more interested in the issue of whether matter exists, and if it does what such existence consists in, and why such existence consists in that manner. How the matter behaves is physics, leading to chemistry, leading to biology.
The science of evolution deals with that how. There is no necessary account of the whether, what or why."
I mostly agree and you have done a splendid job of summarizing the science of evolution (SE).
But then there is the metaphysic of evolution that most definitely DOES attempt to enter into realms that exceed scientific frontiers...
Let's cut to the quick, shall we? I'll ask you the same question that I've asked several others (most recently 'John') : when you promote evolution are you solely promoting the study of changes in allele frequencies in populations? If you do then there is no dispute (at least not with me).
However, if you are actually promoting the ME (as in the synopsis that I presented in a previous post) then you aren't promoting science at all but rather a metaphysic that happens to clash head-on with my own metaphysic (Christianity). That would be a dispute.
So, which is it?
"Thus, for example, a Deist could hold a metaphysical view that the existence of matter was entirely dependent on God, and that the reasons for matter's existence are to be found in His Will, without for a moment dropping a naturalistic belief in how matter interacts.
Salty, if you read his papers, supports both a creationary metaphysic (albeit positing a very impersonal God) and an evolutionary science."
Yes, I know of theistic and progressive evolutionists. My dispute with them is mainly theological although also scientific and philosophical. BTW, any sufficiently knowledgeable creationist will fully agree with evolutionary science - I certainly do. 'Evolution' was part of God's plan given the fall of man due to sin. But this 'evolution' was NOT how God went about "creating" man; i.e., man did not emerge from a primate.
"Unless one is to assume the spontaneous emergence of life, diversity and complexity then there has to be something that made these things possible. But the emergence of life is not necessarily a subject for evolution."
You are correct - the emergence of life is not a subject for evolution, the science of evolution. But it is definitely a subject - in fact, it has to be a subject - for naturalism and the ME.
"There are many evolutionists, including some on this board, who take a metaphysical view of the what it means to be "alive" which is rooted in theism. But there are others (who may be on this board) who would deny that the nature of life is a metaphysical issue. Still others might take a thorough positivist view and deny meaning to any metaphysics at all."
Yes, I have found that many people would like to believe themselves free of "metaphysical considerations". Those are the 'scary' ones - the ones that believe that such a thing is even possible.
"You seem to be caught in the common trap of assuming that denial of your metaphysics is itself a metaphysical position. This is a simple, but seductive, fallacy."
Oops... looks like you're another of those 'scary' ones.
I've been working on a paper for some time... let me give you the punch line : it is impossible for a person to be without a metaphysical foundation. 'Nuff said.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-01-2003 9:05 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-02-2003 11:54 PM Joralex has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 67 (36142)
04-02-2003 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Joralex
04-02-2003 6:35 PM


Re: Evading the issue?
Joralex writes:
Not the dispute between 'creationism and evolution', but rather the dispute between creationism and the metaphysic of evolution. It's very important to get the terms straight.
How does it make sense to insist that people use your terminology when you have yet to persuade anyone that your perspective is valid, or that the ME even exists?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Joralex, posted 04-02-2003 6:35 PM Joralex has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 67 (36147)
04-02-2003 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by nator
03-29-2003 11:42 PM


Well... I've got several posts now dangling. Whatever am I to make of that?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 03-29-2003 11:42 PM nator has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 53 of 67 (36148)
04-02-2003 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Joralex
04-02-2003 7:15 PM


Metaphysics of anything at all
Let me try to sum up your problem here. You are insisting on a metaphysic of evolution, but you have totally failed to explain clearly what that metaphysic consists in.
I am not so much confused as surprised that you seek to conflate what you claim is an "operational model" (whatever that is) with a metaphysic.
I have pretty clearly spelled out the limits of scientific inquiry, whether naturalistic or not, as concerning the interactions of that which exists - and endorsed to an extent your definition of metaphysics as concerning the fundamental nature of what exists: what "existence" consists in, and why existence pertains.
But you still come back with But then there is the metaphysic of evolution that most definitely DOES attempt to enter into realms that exceed scientific frontiers...
This is merely an insistence on your term again, and does no explaining.
You have so far not attempted to show that methodological naturalism necessarily entails an ontological view that only natural or physical things exist.
So far you appear only to have asserted (not explained) that methodological naturalism necessarily entails the the view that all possible predicates must ultimately be open to empirical analysis. This is a bold assertion and deserves more than mere repetition for its support.
You are further making the mistake of claiming that to disagree with you as to what comprises metaphysics is to take a metaphysical position. This is a fallacy.
I enjoy knitting as a hobby. I am knitting a guernsey at the moment but I have a problem with the pattern. I'm not sure how to finish off the sleeve such that the design continues onto the shoulder without looking awkward. You may say "Continue knitting - God will arrange the stitches so that it works out ok." I may disagree that this is likely. Do I now have a metaphysics of knitting? A godless metaphysics of knitting that is incompatible with Christianity?
In short, so long as you insist on simply repeating "metaphysics" over and over again, you can claim whatever you want is incompatible with Christianity - but that does not make it so, and indeed only makes you look a little foolish.
I don't believe you are foolish. I think you have something you are trying to express and that this is important to you. So, I suggest you take a step back and attempt to explain what your claimed metaphysics of evolution consists in and how it is distinguished from the science of evolution.
Until you do so, you are merely repeating yourself in vain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Joralex, posted 04-02-2003 7:15 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Joralex, posted 04-05-2003 9:18 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 54 of 67 (36155)
04-03-2003 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Joralex
04-02-2003 6:35 PM


Re: Evading the issue?
Well it seems that you yet again attempt to evade the issue.
We are essentially left with the claim that any part of evolution that contradicts creationism is part of the "M.E." - yet that is, on the face of it, clearly false. And yet we see that you are not prepared to put any effort into actually defending such a claim.
I also note that your thinking seems confused here :
quote:
"... it follows that you hold that ANY part of evolution that contradicts mainstream creationist views is part of M.E."
The essence of what you're saying is correct but the details and application are difficult. For example, I surmise that you would agree that 'natural selection' is a "part of evolution". Yet, natural selection doesn't contradict creationism at all.
What is the point of this paragraph ? The statement you respond to is a simple logical deduction from your own claim - and it says nothing about the status of those parts of evolution that do not contradict creationism. The application is not difficult, because clearly it does not apply to any such points. The real point however is that if we can identify parts of evolution that conflict with creationism yetseem to be clearly part of "S.E." your claim is refuted - unless you can argue otherwise.
quote:
Briefly let me say why I find the topic of "whale evolution" a complete
waste of everyone's time : there is a vast number of unknowns; the 'evidence' is scarce and very much controversial; there is a great deal of conjecture interwoven into what very little is known; and, last but not least, there is already a presupposition that whales evolved from land animals - GIGO.
I disagree with much of this. Firstly discussing a clear example is not a waste of time. It is a clear way at getting at the real issue (so your failure to explain why it is NOT part of "S.E." is time-wasting). The evidence for whale evolution is not controversial in scientific circles - the descent from ungulates has been agreed for some time, for instance. The idea that whales evolved from land animals was not a presupposition but a conclusion drawn from the evidence. So we have a counter-eample to your assertions, in that we have science in conflict with your religious beliefs.
quote:
Look, let's not waste any more time, please. It's really very simple : I provided a synopsis of the ME. When you speak of 'evolution', are you solely promoting the study of changes in allele frequencies in populations? If you are then we have no dispute. BUT, if you are promoting the ME (as in the synopsis I provided) then you are promoting a metaphysic (i.e., NOT a science) that happens to clash with my own
metaphysic (Christianity). Only then would there be a dispute.
It seems odd for you to cmplain about time being wasted when most of the time is spent trying to coax information and defences of your assertions out of you. If you would actually discuss the issues properly we would make more rapid progress.
And your synopsis of "M.E.", as well as being unclear and containing highly questionable points you have yet to address, does not clearly include all of evolution beyond "change in allele frequencies" nor have you supported your claim that anything more than that is excluded from "S.E.". So you have offered two definitions but it is far form clear that they are definitions of the same thing.
Your post does contain some minor clarifications - which could, and should, have been provided earlier. But aside from that it adds little to the discussion.
The key question here is whether your division between "M.E." and "S.E." is a genuine division or an artificial construct produced only to rationalise away the fact that creationism conflicts with science.
The current state on that issue is :
1) The only definition of "M.E." which clearly rules out a contradiction with creationism is "Everything in evolution beyond allele changes in populations". However this is consistent with the claim that the distinction is artificial - since it clearly could include scientific claims.
2) Although a specific example has been raised, and you have accepted that your view demands that it is part of "M.E." you have not produced any justification for that view. This is also evidence supporting the view that we are dealing with an artificial divide.
3) You have claimed that it is obvious to anyone who has studied the evidence that the clash is metaphysical. However if it is so obvious why is it the case that you have yet to clearly support your claims ? Shouldn't you be able to explain why the issues where there are clashes are in fact metaphysics ? The fact that you have yet to do so shows that it is not as obvious as you claimed.
If you really object to wasting time then stop evading the issues and support your claim that all of evolution beyond "allele changes in populations" is metaphysics and not science.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Joralex, posted 04-02-2003 6:35 PM Joralex has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 55 of 67 (36216)
04-03-2003 2:53 PM


The real difference
I will say at the start that I am aware that there are oddballs on both sides who may not fit but I think that this captures the mainstream positions.
The purely factual disagreement centres on the history of life on Earth, but more importantly there is a difference in epistemology, on how we determine that history.
For creationists the answer lies in a more-or-less literalistic interpretation of Genesis. As Joralex stated in message 40 of the "THe Bible 2003 Edition By God et al" his most important disagreement with those Christians who accept evolution was "their willingness to undermine Scripture in order to accommodate a paradigm that is contrary to the Biblical essence".
The creationist view is therefore at heart based on a particular view of the nature, purpose and interpretation of scripture. A religious view.
The evolutionist view, on the other hand is based on the examination of the physical evidence of our world. Taxonomy and biogeography and the fossil record were key evidences at first - but others such as Darwin's observations of the effects of the artificial selection used to breed pigeons were also important. More recently examination of genes has become available and it, too supports evolution. This is how science works.
While it might be argued that the scientific evidence is somehow defective it is a fact that the vast majority of scientists working in hte relevant areas do accept evolution - including those who accept a supernaturalistic metaphysics. On the other hand, of the few scientists who accept creationism some at least have done so as the result of preexisting religious commitments - YEC Kurt Wise and ID supporter Jonathan Wells being two well-known examples (although Wells seems to have done little or no science since obtaining his PhD). I cannot think of any example who can be shown to have been converted to creationism by scientific evidence. The facts here are beyond dispute and point to the conclusion that creationism is indeed religious while evolution is science.
Given all this it seems clear that the dispute between creationism and evolution is one of religion against science. To say otherwise in the face of the prima facie evidence to the contrary requires more support than assertions.

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 67 (36327)
04-05-2003 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Mister Pamboli
04-02-2003 11:54 PM


Any clearer?
"Let me try to sum up your problem here. You are insisting on a metaphysic of evolution, but you have totally failed to explain clearly what that metaphysic consists in."
In an earlier post I gave a very brief synopsis of the ME - did you miss it?
One more time : among other things, a metaphysic seeks to provide a foundation for all of reality... a metaphysic is a sort of filter through which all events are interpreted and studied as a unified 'whole' ('cosmos' or 'universe').
Thus, the Christian metaphysic provides a foundation for interpreting life, death, art, science, ethics, culture, pain and suffering, war, joy, sorrow, etc... etc.
Through the ME one is also able to interpret life, death, art, science, ethics, culture, pain and suffering, war, joy, sorrow, etc... etc. If you don't agree then go to any hardcore evolutionist and as an example ask : "In light of evolution, how do you explain ethics?" I guarantee you, you'll get an answer. The ME is a metaphysic by which all things may be viewed, just as is Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc.
Clear as daylight, Mister Pamboli.
By the way, I must point out that I've asked the question four times now to four different people - still no response. Do you promote solely the SE or are you really promoting the ME?
If it's the former then we have no dispute. If it's the latter then you are promoting a metaphysic that clashes with the Christian metaphysic and that is the source of the dispute.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-02-2003 11:54 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 04-05-2003 10:28 AM Joralex has not replied
 Message 58 by edge, posted 04-05-2003 10:33 AM Joralex has not replied
 Message 59 by John, posted 04-05-2003 11:06 AM Joralex has not replied
 Message 60 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-05-2003 1:21 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2003 6:18 PM Joralex has not replied

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


Message 57 of 67 (36329)
04-05-2003 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Joralex
04-05-2003 9:18 AM


Re: Any clearer?
quote:
One more time : among other things, a metaphysic seeks to provide a foundation for all of reality... a metaphysic is a sort of filter through which all events are interpreted and studied as a unified 'whole' ('cosmos' or 'universe').
Thus, the Christian metaphysic provides a foundation for interpreting life, death, art, science, ethics, culture, pain and suffering, war, joy, sorrow, etc... etc.
Through the ME one is also able to interpret life, death, art, science, ethics, culture, pain and suffering, war, joy, sorrow, etc... etc. If you don't agree then go to any hardcore evolutionist and as an example ask : "In light of evolution, how do you explain ethics?" I guarantee you, you'll get an answer. The ME is a metaphysic by which all things may be viewed, just as is Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc.
Clear as daylight, Mister Pamboli.
Is that all of it? I've read over the discussion and can't find more. You give a rough idea of what a metaphysic in general is but I can't see what the "ME" specically is.
Your first part has " a metaphysic seeks to provide a foundation for all of reality..." and "all events are interpreted ...."
But the ToE doesn't get anywhere near "all events" or "all of reality" so it doesn't qualify in the regard. As a scientific endeavor it shares the same basic views (assumptions, "beliefs" if you will) about the universe (things like it is actually there, it is consistent) but doesn't appear to have any separate "metaphysic"of it's own.
If I ask "In light of evolution, how do you explain fangs on a cat?", is that the ME? If not where is the line that makes the fangs on one side part of SE and ethics of a society one the other side and part of SE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Joralex, posted 04-05-2003 9:18 AM Joralex has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 58 of 67 (36330)
04-05-2003 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Joralex
04-05-2003 9:18 AM


Re: Any clearer?
quote:
By the way, I must point out that I've asked the question four times now to four different people - still no response. Do you promote solely the SE or are you really promoting the ME?
I thought this was clear as daylight and I seem to remember at least one direct response to you. But perhaps many here sense a trap. I promote what you call scientific evolution, particularly since it is a scientific endeavor to understand the world we live in.
quote:
If it's the former then we have no dispute. If it's the latter then you are promoting a metaphysic that clashes with the Christian metaphysic and that is the source of the dispute.
I am glad to hear that we have no dispute. In fact, the only reason there is an issue at all is that the biblical account in Genesis appears to disagree with evolution. Many christians have no problem with this and accept SE as the explanation of the diversity of life on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Joralex, posted 04-05-2003 9:18 AM Joralex has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 67 (36332)
04-05-2003 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Joralex
04-05-2003 9:18 AM


Re: Any clearer? hmmm.... not really
quote:
One more time : among other things, a metaphysic seeks to provide a foundation for all of reality... a metaphysic is a sort of filter through which all events are interpreted and studied as a unified 'whole' ('cosmos' or 'universe').
Do you intend to address any of my direct responses to this claim? This subject came up as far back as Post #2, but #36 and #40 more directly address it. I'd hate to think that you are not responding because you can't respond. Of course, you aren't addressing anyone else either, just repeating yourself and ignoring the objections we've posted.
EvC Forum: Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?
EvC Forum: Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?
EvC Forum: Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Joralex, posted 04-05-2003 9:18 AM Joralex has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 60 of 67 (36335)
04-05-2003 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Joralex
04-05-2003 9:18 AM


Any clearer? Sure, Your confusion is now transparent
quote:
One more time : among other things, a metaphysic seeks to provide a foundation for all of reality... a metaphysic is a sort of filter through which all events are interpreted and studied as a unified 'whole' ('cosmos' or 'universe').
The foundation for all reality? In that case, there is no metaphysics of evolution. I have never yet met an anyone who thought their particular strain of evolutionary thought covered the fundamental properties of matter, the nature of causality, the relationship of number theory to physics and so on. So the answer is simple - there is no metaphysics, nor is there any single metaphysical viewpoint, in re these metaphysical issues, required for evolutionary theory.
So the answer to your question, now that we have clarified it sufficiently for me to feel I can answer (which was all I was waiting for) is a resounding "no." In so far as I promote the theory of evolution at all, I do not do so in such a way that it requires a single metaphysical system to support it.
I note that you seem to be trying to stretch your metaphysics here to cover ethics, aesethetics and psychology. We're not shifting the goalposts are we?
[edited to add the last paragraph]
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Joralex, posted 04-05-2003 9:18 AM Joralex 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