Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?

This is a reply to Message 57 of the The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al thread. Two points. First, when was the last time you observed an atomic particle? Never, right? Their existence is only implied. Does that make atomic particles a religion or metaphysic?Second, we don't accept evolution because of abiogenesis. Rather, we hypothesize that abiogenesis happened because it's an inevitable implication as you trace the evolution of organisms back in time. Newton did not believe "God did it" in causing apples to fall or the planets to orbit the sun, but that it was due to gravity, a property of an object's mass. Maxwell did not believe that God created the fields described by his equations, but that they were a result of moving charges. Newton and Maxwell, like many of us here, believed that God is the ultimate creator of the universe, but God played no role in their theories. Science attempts to understand the real world. Because we know our understanding can never be complete, it is tentative, or as you say, malleable. It changes its views when new or better information becomes available. You're criticizing science for living up to its definition. I think Quetzal has already addressed this by providing the Ruse definition of science. How would *you* characterize what should be taught in science class? How do you justify calling materialistic naturalism (your term, by the way, and not one I would use) a religion, especially for those of us who already have a religion? Science education in the K-12 grades focuses on presenting the current state of the art as represented by the preponderance of opinion. The leading edge of scientific advances are not typically taught, though naturally they'll be mentioned as part of "current events in science." I would agree with you about representing all possibilities, but only to the point of allowing possibilities with significant representation within the scientific community competent to have an opinion (ie, the opinions of cosmologists about biology don't count, and so forth). Evidence or data is information apparent in some way to the five senses. The persuasiveness of evidence is a function of the nature of the evidence, how well it fits with existing evidence, and the presence of any countervailing evidence. So your photos qualify as evidence, but they're certainly not conclusive evidence. But your point emphasizing evidence is a very good one, because in order to promote the theory of creation described in Genesis you need to present evidence supporting it, not just call the theory of evolution a religion. So science which doesn't oppose a metaphysic is okay, while science which opposes a metaphysic is wrong? How is this any different than saying any science which contradicts the views of fundamentalist Christians is wrong? Also, "the universe began with the Big Bang" contradicts your metaphysic. And "the earth is 4.6 billion years old" contradicts your metaphysic. Are they wrong too? This is an excellent point. So when God's word as written in the earth and stars contradicts God's word as recorded in Bible, which do you go with?--Percy

And the other error he makes is to subsume under "atheist" all who accept the theory of evolution. Many who accept evolution, including me, are not atheists.--Percy

You weren't equating those who accept materialistic naturalism with Atheism? But people accept more than one worldview and switch between them as necessary. My science worldview holds that only that which is in some way apparent to one or more of the five senses is real. My religious worldview holds that there is a Creator who loves and cares for us. I do not confuse the two. In other words, there is no religion in my evolution, and I am not a theistic evolutionist. I accept the theory of evolution because it best explains the evidence. I accept science as the best way to learn about the natural world because of its long and continuing record of success. It seems to me that all you're doing is pinning the "religion" label on evolution in the hopes that it will stick without having to argue the evidence, and simply because it contradicts your own religious views.--Percy

I wasn't trying to speak so precisely as to require getting into a "You said/did not" kind of thing. You equated materialistic naturalism with atheism, and I was only pointing out that it's not generally true, which you claim is what you said anyway. In that case, by your definition I have no metaphysic. The worldview I apply depends upon context. Sure you have! You just rationalize the conflicts away by saying, "That's not science, that's a metaphysic." If only putting a label on something could make it so. But you so far seem to feel no need to make the case in support of this assertion. You've repeated this many times now, but as yet haven't identified where scientists are making the leap of faith.--Percy

Butting into Quetzal's subthread...Hi Joralex! First you say: It's the latter part of that statement that probably few evolutionists accept. Without first establishing the existence of an ME it might be premature for you to ask your next question: Since we're not yet convinced that there's any such thing as an ME, it might make sense to spend more time discussing it. It seems that what you call a metaphysic is merely that which you think insufficiently supported by evidence, and which happens to contradict your religious views. I see several problems with your position as I understand it at present:

• You haven't yet established that evolution is insufficiently supported by evidence.
  ​
• A scientific hypothesis which does not have sufficient evidence to be called a theory is not a metaphysic.
  ​
• A scientific theory that opposes one religious view or another is not a metaphysic.
  ​
• I don't think we can be certain how you mean the term metaphysic in this discussion, and I wonder if you can't find a more common term whose meaning isn't so ambiguous to non-philosophers.

--Percy

The history of science is full of people who held strange beliefs. Fred Hoyle, who very nearly won a Nobel, comes to mind.I recently read an article, I forget which magazine, which reported studies showing that gifted and brilliant people usually possess a talent for defending and preserving their beliefs out of all proportion to available evidence.--Percy

I understand. What's interesting is that brilliance is no protection against acquiring misconceptions, and the more brilliant a person is, the more difficult it is to disabuse that person of any misconceptions they may have, no matter how simple, basic or fundamental.--Percy

Others have already replied to this post so I will not add any more, other than to say that I agree with everyone else that it doesn't appear you've established there is any such thing as an ME.--Percy

Joralex appears to be correct that the "Metaphysics of Evolution" is not his own invention. If you do a Google search for it (put quotes around it) you'll get lots of hits.--Percy

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