quote:
what on Earth would be the utility of trying to synthesize science and made-up stuff?
The use of such a synthesis is to attempt to bolster ones faith with empirical evidence provided by methodological naturalism. Such an approach both demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of methodological naturalism and simultaneously exposes a very weak faith.
I can understand that if your best friend gets killed in a freak accident, you would want some explanation for why him, why now, why at all that science will not provide and faith or philosophy might provide the comfort needed to get past the event. I can even understand peoples inherent fear of death. But I have little understanding for people who claim to base their faith on empirical evidence which includes such ridiculous "facts" as the bible says so or design is self evident.
As Loudmouth pointed out, if you want to test a hypothesis in the lab, no matter how trivial it may be, in what way does inclusion of religion benefit or even address the hypothesis? If I want to construct a vector that will cause overexpression of the prion protein in human neuronal cell lines, what benefit am I going to get by including religion? What does a paternity test based on microsatellite loci gain by including god/gods/the supernatural? You might pray that you are not the father after that night of drinking tequila and vague memories of a girl in fishnet stockings who said she only takes cash, but the test and the science that went into developing the test are purely based on MN with no incorporation of anything mythical.
Darkstar claims we need to include mythology in science to get at the truth but studiously avoids mentioning a single case where this has benefited scientific discovery or how it would even in theory benefit science at all. It is highly likely that his avoidance represents his inability to do so.
™ Version 4.2
