Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation, Evolution, and faith
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 230 of 456 (554858)
04-10-2010 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by kbertsche
04-10-2010 12:14 PM


Re: Reason and evidence
No, I am definitely not ignoring those who make such claims. In Message 141 I demonstrated that Christian theology involves reason and objective evidence, disproving the claim that religion "involves ONLY subjective evidence and appeals to authority."
No, you showed quite clearly that it relies only on appeal to authority, the written word of the bible. That's the only "evidence" that you relied on. True, anyone can look at the bible and see what it says. But looking at the bible and seeing what it says is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Nobody can look at any evidence to see if what the bible says is true.
A classic appeal to authority.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 12:14 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 8:36 PM subbie has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 252 of 456 (555027)
04-11-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by kbertsche
04-10-2010 8:36 PM


Re: Reason and evidence
If you seriously think that the objection that rational people have to religion is based on hermeneutics, you either haven't been paying attention or you're irretrievably stupid.
Faith in religion has little to do with whether someone's particular interpretation is accurate or not, but whether the claims made by the religion are accurate. Would you care to try to defend that territory, or will you concede that, in that regard, religion is based on subjective evidence and appeals to authority? Or will you simply ignore this question?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 8:36 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by kbertsche, posted 04-12-2010 10:55 PM subbie has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 331 of 456 (557199)
04-23-2010 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by kbertsche
04-23-2010 11:13 AM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
The question of why (in a non-mechanistic sense) the earth follows gravitational laws is a metaphysical question, not a scientific question. I will suggest two possibilities:
1) The earth does this because God causes it to do so. God is the one who controls, operates, and upholds the universe every milisecond. He normally operates His universe in a consistent way. We identify this consistency as "natural laws." These natural laws have no independent existence on their own, they are merely descriptive of God's activity. This metaphysical perspective was held by nearly all of the founders of modern science: Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Maxwell, etc.
2) The earth does this because gravitational behavior is built into the fabric of nature. These laws are part of the universe itself. Nature runs like a clock with these built-in laws governing it, independently of any gods. This metaphysical perspective is that of Deism and of many modern scientists, especially atheists. (This is what I meant by the metaphysical position of the so-called "scientific atheists.")
[quote omitted]
I'm not sure about your particular position. But the two positions outlined above are definitely metaphysical. Science dictates neither one, and good science can be done under either.
You are correct that science dictates neither position, and good science can be done under either. That, of course, does not mean the two positions are scientifically equivalent. One assumes the existence of a being which is unnecessary, and for which no objective evidence can be produced. Given that there can be no observational distinction between the two that would let us conclude that one is more likely than the other, parsimony would dictate rejecting the first as adding an additional irrelevant element. So, even though science doesn't dictate either one, it certainly suggests a strong preference for the second.
If you are not inclined to reject the first on the basis of parsimony, then please provide a set of criteria to let us determine which irrelevant additions we should rationally accept and which we shouldn't. Is thunder the sound of gods bowling? Are natural disasters caused by Loki? Why do you say one god? Why not a different god for each regularity we see in nature?
You first proposal raises many more problems (innumerable, really) than it solves (none).

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by kbertsche, posted 04-23-2010 11:13 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by kbertsche, posted 04-24-2010 3:29 PM subbie has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 341 of 456 (557332)
04-24-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by kbertsche
04-24-2010 3:29 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
Here are what I consider to be my metaphysical assumptions:
1. There is an actual reality external to us that exists. In other words, we're not in the Matrix.
2. Other people are actual, independent, sentient beings.
3. As a group, we can accurately sense that external reality. Particular individuals in particular situations may be mislead by their senses, but when there is a general consensus, for example, the sky is blue, that general consensus is usually accurate. In other words, we're not all having the same delusion.
I reject your classification of the two possibilities that you offered as being metaphysical. They are statements that purport to describe reality. As such, they are subject to scientific investigation the same as any other statement that describes reality.
Second, the universe is very different under the two metaphysical positions above.
You say that, yet you fail to propose any observational distinction that anyone could use to be able to tell which of the two universes we are in. Can you propose such a distinction? Or, can you explain why we should care about which of two statements that have no observational distinctions between them are true?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by kbertsche, posted 04-24-2010 3:29 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by kbertsche, posted 04-26-2010 12:04 PM subbie 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