Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 26 of 64 (35002)
03-23-2003 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Joralex
03-23-2003 9:38 AM


Re: Explanation
But not all metaphysics are equally valid in all contexts. For example, naturalism would be a poor metaphysic for the study of the supernatural, and religion a poor metaphysic for the study of natural principles.
When examining a phenomena it is important to describe on what basis or for what reason the position of religion differs with the position of science. For example, does religion have a different position than science on Newton's Laws of Motion? No, of course not. But your religion *does* have a different position than science concerning evolution. Data supporting evolution was gathered using the same scientific method as data supporting Newton's Laws. What distinction do you draw between evolution and Newton that causes the religion metaphysic to interpret them differently?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 9:38 AM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 4:53 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 34 of 64 (35023)
03-23-2003 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Joralex
03-23-2003 4:53 PM


Re: Then you agree.
Joralex writes:
While a constrained metaphysic is theoretically possible, a metaphysic is generally regarded as all-encompassing. That is why a 'metaphysic' and a 'worldview' are synonymous meaning that all aspects of existence are encompassed by that particular metaphysic/worldview.
As all-encompassing as they may be, people move between worldviews. These worldviews provide a context for interpretation, and many people use one for searching their hearts and another for searching the stars.
Also, what you propose above is a caricature - e.g., no knowledgeable person would consider employing Maxwell's Equations to study the Bible.
Caricature was not my intention, and I never mentioned Maxwell's Equations. I did mention the scientific method, and many have approached the Bible this way.
Newton's Laws of Motion make no pretense to oppose the creationist worldview so there is no 'clashing' of metaphysics. Newton's Laws of Motion aim merely to describe certain aspects of the universe and not to suggest an alternate means by which that universe may have come about. The evolutionary paradigm, on the other hand, aims to replace the creationist worldview with materialistic naturalism - an alternate and opposing worldview.
Newton's Laws of Motion may not be in opposition to the worldview of the modern Creationist, but when first introduced they were in opposition to the Creationist worldview of that time, for back then it was believed that the heavenly bodies were in some way guided along their paths by divine providence, perhaps propelled by the beating wings of angels, or even by the hand of God himself.
And neither Newton's Laws of Motion nor evolution were introduced to "replace" the Creationist worldview. They were both the result of scientific investigation. That they contradicted the Creationist worldview is just the way it happened to fall out.
So the important question remains: What distinction do you draw between evolution and Newton that causes the religion metaphysic to interpret them differently?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 4:53 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 51 of 64 (35239)
03-25-2003 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Joralex
03-25-2003 2:45 PM


Re: One standard...
Joralex writes:
When naturalists modify their theory (as they did with Punkeek) it's called "science". When we creationists modify our thinking it's called "fanaticism", "irrational" or "moving the goalposts".
Shall we have one standard, please?
I don't know that you could have one standard for both science and religion. Science is tenative, and so when science modifies theory in reponse to new evidence and/or improved understanding, then yes, that is science. Religion, on the other hand, is usually represented as containing timeless truths, and so if it should change its views it would call this principle into question.
I understand that you're actually trying to cast this as a conflict between metaphysics and not between science and religion, but it seems to me that what you call metaphysics is actually just that which in your opinion is insufficiently supported by evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Joralex, posted 03-25-2003 2:45 PM Joralex has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2003 2:56 AM Percy 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