tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7517780208481811142..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Tim McGrew's reply to Drange's Argument from ConfusionVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger212125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63634082021123944662012-01-25T15:13:23.265-07:002012-01-25T15:13:23.265-07:00Where are the 'newest' comments?Where are the 'newest' comments?Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61151130024508690732012-01-24T08:25:19.739-07:002012-01-24T08:25:19.739-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64474836628372968852012-01-23T16:38:54.327-07:002012-01-23T16:38:54.327-07:00>So, you concede the point then.
There is a po...>So, you concede the point then.<br /><br />There is a point? Since when?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50832305960054036122012-01-23T15:47:27.624-07:002012-01-23T15:47:27.624-07:00Do you just make up any old shit off the top of yo...<i>Do you just make up any old shit off the top of your head & hope nobody notices?</i><br /><br />Of course he does. You think he cares about knowing anything? He's here to be heard. <br /><br />Didn't you see the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usK3eA9tezA&feature=related" rel="nofollow">commercial he made</a>? ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78298618844004151762012-01-23T15:39:43.007-07:002012-01-23T15:39:43.007-07:00"Since your "It's old therefore it&#..."Since your "It's old therefore it's wrong" meme has failed spectacularly you are now pushing "Rah! Rah! Naturalism! Rah! Rah! Empiricism! Rah! Rah Materialism!". <br /><br />Do you just make up any old shit off the top of your head & hope nobody notices?"<br /><br />So, you concede the point then.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34829996232167098222012-01-23T07:15:38.709-07:002012-01-23T07:15:38.709-07:00>it is only naturalism and materialism, togethe...>it is only naturalism and materialism, together with empiricism, that has emerged as the foundation of substantive knowledge.<br /><br />More Low Brow fundamentalism instead of solid philosophical argument. <br /><br />Since your "It's old therefore it's wrong" meme has failed spectacularly you are now pushing "Rah! Rah! Naturalism! Rah! Rah! Empiricism! Rah! Rah Materialism!". <br /><br />Do you just make up any old shit off the top of your head & hope nobody notices?<br /><br />Cause it still doesn't work fundie.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24710762309491448832012-01-23T02:41:49.384-07:002012-01-23T02:41:49.384-07:00">But that's not the point, Crude.
Th...">But that's not the point, Crude.<br /><br />Then why make such a big deal of the fact Aquinas philosophy was from 100 years ago?"<br /><br />The point so clearly enumerated is that naturalism and materialism and atheism, together with Aquinas's and Aristotle's and Plato's philosophical musings, may have emerged in the distant passed, but it is only naturalism and materialism, together with empiricism, that has emerged as the foundation of substantive knowledge. Knowledge through christian theology has not made a new or fresh dent in our understanding of the world, the universe or the human condition since Aquinas's time. The development of theistic knowledge building on Aquinas's contribution has been non-existent. There has been no continuing development in metaphysics or theology; no progress in god studies that has opened up fresh, new and exciting frontiers of investigation. Indeed god studies has been in static hiatus since Aquinas. A thousand years of marching on the spot.<br /><br />By contrast, just about, if not every field of human activity, outside theology, has witnessed exponential growth, and a unified narrative despite the widely diverse fields of study has emerged, confirming naturalism and materialism as the core of the knowledge base and understanding of the universe, life and the relationships between organic and inorganic existence. The explanatory power of these diverse disciplines is consistent, uniform, reliable and predictable. Again contrast this with the theological narrative; illusory, nebulous, inconsistent, conflicting, self-contradictory, unearthly, ethereal, unknowable, indistinct, blurred and shadowy. And there is no way of knowing if one or any religious tradition has a foundation in truth and reality. Ask a christian. Then ask a Muslim. Then ask a Hindi. Then ask a buddhist. Then ask a mormon. Then ask a Jew. Then ask a catholic. Then ask a Calvinist. Then ask a Jehovah's Witness. Then ask a Taoist. And on and on and on.<br /><br />C'mon boys! Meddling in theology is simply dabbling at the margins. This has been the trend since the Enlightenment. And the sciences and correlative disciplines are at the frontline. Religion is a follower, a hanger-on, not a leader, an innovator, trailblazer, groundbreaker, or pathfinder. It has reached its use-by date in the Western world. And the after-process over time will eventually flow into Africa and the Far East.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56298275102971843552012-01-23T02:34:15.127-07:002012-01-23T02:34:15.127-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6980404899673617192012-01-22T23:31:23.238-07:002012-01-22T23:31:23.238-07:00>But that's not the point, Crude.
Then why...>But that's not the point, Crude.<br /><br />Then why make such a big deal of the fact Aquinas philosophy was from 100 years ago?<br /><br />You where clearly trying to imply it was pre-scientific & pre-modern thus somehow primitive & thus flase because it's old.<br /><br />Now you are backpedaling because I pointed out Democretus came up with Atheist Materialism.<br /><br />BTW did you know Democretus was also a Flat-Earther?<br /><br />(What does that have to do with the truth or falsehood of Materialism or Atheism? Nothing I just thought I play with your fundie paranoia).<br /><br />Your version of Atheism is still low brow?<br /><br />Accept it. Try to learn philosophy then maybe one day you can actually argue.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70274736988247841042012-01-22T21:10:39.260-07:002012-01-22T21:10:39.260-07:00"So was Materialism & Atheism as it was p..."<i>So was Materialism & Atheism as it was put forth by the greek philosopher Democretus.</i><br /><br />I'm glad you brought that up - people usually miss that point. They get the idea that naturalism or materialism is some brand new idea that came around in the past 50 years."<br /><br />But that's not the point, Crude. Every day since breaking away from the manacles of theism, all the various sciences and every other investigative human activity other than theology are all consistently dovetailing and inexorably exposing the soft <i>metaphysical</i> underbelly of christian theism for the mythos that it is and continues to demonstrate again and again the foundational conception of materialism and naturalism. The more we understand about the world and us, through anthropology, sociology, the neuro-sciences, medicine, technology, physics, chemistry, biology etc etc, the quicker theological explanations fade into the dust of history. Naturalism and materialism are quintessential aspects that define us, the world and the universe. Without the material us without a material brain, there would be no us. Indeed there would be no god concept, just there would be no legend of Jason and the Argonauts or believing in the ubiquitous rain dance. Not only is the god concept but a process of ideation derived from an active and creative brain, it is also a wholly-owned derivative and product of the natural evolutionary development of that brain and the natural evolutionary process that we are increasingly becoming to understand for life on this earth. <br /><br />Ben says of me, "Says the guy who equivocates between "unnatural" vs "supernatural".<br />I though I made it clear there is no supernatural. There is natural and naturalism, and it can be proved. As for supernaturalism, it is just ...... thinking patterns, with the Abrahamic god sharing the same basket as Superman and Gulliver's Travels, and Spiderman and Zeus and Thor. Surely with close to a billion adherents as does Hinduism, the reality of Ganesh, an elephant-headed deity, son of Shiva and Parvati, worshiped by that billion as the remover of obstacles and patron of learning, who is usually depicted colored red, with a potbelly and one broken tusk, riding a rat, should have alerted you two, and Victor, to the possibility that gods and satans and nephilim, and seraphim and angels and the walking dead and all things that go bump in the night, might not be a kosher concept of reality?<br /><br />A materialist reductionist is a natural phenomenon, and it is a category error to compare it with Traditionalist Thomist . A Traditionalist Thomist is just someone parodying someone else's life.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64846882515365135312012-01-22T18:54:23.000-07:002012-01-22T18:54:23.000-07:00I only do this in your fevered fundamentalist imag...<i>I only do this in your fevered fundamentalist imagination Paps.</i><br /><br />That's all Paps has, Ben. It's particularly funny because quite a lot of the criticisms Feser has of Dennett are criticisms given by other non-theistic philosophers - Fodor, Searle, etc.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Paps doesn't even seem to understand what Dennett himself even advocates. He gets as far as "Well, Dawkins said something nice about him so I better be a good little monkey and defend him".<br /><br /><i>So was Materialism & Atheism as it was put forth by the greek philosopher Democretus.</i><br /><br />I'm glad you brought that up - people usually miss that point. They get the idea that naturalism or materialism is some brand new idea that came around in the past 50 years.<br /><br />Paps, don't you have a Boggle tournament to attend? ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83068095791195143302012-01-22T17:14:54.139-07:002012-01-22T17:14:54.139-07:00@Paps
>Ben, you have been caught out lying, mis...@Paps<br />>Ben, you have been caught out lying, misconstruing and egregiously reinterpreting Dennett's position,<br /><br />Says the guy who equivocates between "unnatural" vs "supernatural".<br /><br />I only do this in your fevered fundamentalist imagination Paps.<br /><br />Dennett is a materialist reductionist. That is the lens threw which he interprets his science.<br /><br />Live with it.<br /><br />Feser is a Traditionalist Thomist & that is the lens threw which he looks at science.<br /><br />Learn philosophy & stop dicking around. Because your version of Atheism is still low brow.<br /><br />>Once again your arguments are manacled to thought patterns posited 1,000 years ago <br /><br />So was Materialism & Atheism as it was put forth by the greek philosopher Democretus.<br /><br />The "This is old therefore it is wrong" meme doesn't really apply to philosophy.<br /><br />Your Atheism is still low brow. I could never believe it even if I stopped believing in God.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29690395497384593432012-01-22T16:29:30.423-07:002012-01-22T16:29:30.423-07:00Ben, you have been caught out lying, misconstruing...Ben, you have been caught out lying, misconstruing and egregiously reinterpreting Dennett's position, and others, simply to prop your fragile metaphysical grip on reality. Once again your arguments are manacled to thought patterns posited 1,000 years ago or greater, coupled with three modern theologians masquerading as philosophers, Feser, Feser and Feser. I am not all that enamoured with Dennett myself but on balance he is streets ahead of Feser in the philosophical game. Feser continues to use Aquinas's five ways as the fundamental premise on which to base all his recent philosophical musings, and that is not good. All that does is propagate the falsity and not introduce new thinking based on new evidence. Feser's arguments are old arguments dressed in new clothes; the emperor's 'new' clothes.<br />Dennett grapples with contemporary issues and insights of the human condition. Feser attempts to squeeze contemporary issues and insights into Aquinas's thinking, a wholly retrograde perspective, not unlike the interpretation of the reinterpretation of the meta-interpretation of the previous interpretations of 'scholarly' Apologetics.<br /><br />If that is low brow, then I can't imagine where your thinking patterns would fall on the continuum, when you seem to be perpetually hovering around the time between Aristotle [350BCE] and Aquinas [1250CE]. I am a product of my age. You seem extraordinarily uncomfortable with contemporary life and wish to revisit the golden age of Aquinas on today's society.<br /><br />I am not prepared to accept that there is any merit in traveling in reverse as the principal mode of transportation. <br />I am not interested in going 'back to basics'. I am excited about going 'forward to fundamentals'.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35375353641560183952012-01-22T13:41:26.319-07:002012-01-22T13:41:26.319-07:00Anyway we have went threw all this before Paps.
Y...Anyway we have went threw all this before Paps.<br /><br />You just repeat the same shit. It' boring.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9727853376499808992012-01-22T13:40:35.156-07:002012-01-22T13:40:35.156-07:00>How is this garble even meaningful? If philoso...>How is this garble even meaningful? If philosophy and Science are the key[sic] to natural knowledge, then christian theology must be the key to unnatural knowledge.<br /><br />Nice dodge Paps but I don't have to believe in the second weird proposition to believe the first and the first doesn't lead to the second.<br /><br />Also you are equivocating between something being unnatural (i.e. acting contrary to it's nature) with the Supernatural(i.e. that being beyond nature).<br /><br />Like I said Low brow.<br /><br />>In the matter of, "Not science alone since that concept can't be verified by science thus it can't be known to be true" is simply wrong.<br /><br />Paps arguing the success of Science as Science gets you nowhere. I can argue the success of metal detectors to detect metal coins but the brute fact they still can't detect wooden coins doesn't rule out the existence of wooden coins.<br /><br />Microscopes still can't observe galaxies. Their success in observing micro objects doesn't rule out the existence of the macro.<br /><br />The brute fact of scientific Data is undeniable. But the interpretation and meaning of that data especially how it relates to existence and being is the providence of philosophy.<br /><br />Without philosophy there is no knowledge.<br /><br />You can't even use science Paps without the philosophical presuppositions of science.<br /><br />Philosophy without science is just as asinine but your low brow Scientism Atheism can never be more than that.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10202584060943919482012-01-22T13:19:39.392-07:002012-01-22T13:19:39.392-07:00>And where Dennett notes "there is only sc...>And where Dennett notes "there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination", this is a clear reference to theists who seek to mire science through the strawman tactic of theo-philosophical argument. <br /><br />Really? All that Isogesis from one self evidence simple text? <br /><br />Yes Paps Dennett is philosophically a materialist reductionist not a semi-Platonist like Penrose or an idealist or an Aristotelian. But he clearly uses philosophy with science not science alone.<br /><br />Not every non-Catholic Christian believes in Sola Scriptura/Bible Alone. Traditional Anglicans believe in Scripture, Tradition and Reason. But I would never claim by tradition they mean from a strictly Roman Catholic view. <br /><br />Indeed one can be a Christian Materialist (i.e. everything except God is material). Or Atheistic followers of Ayn Rand value Aristotle as the world's greatest genius.<br /><br />Your poo poohing of classic learning because it might have theistic cooties is a fundamentalist move. Not unlike YEC hysterical reactions to Evolution. <br /><br />>Are you forgetting Dennett is a philosopher?<br /><br />That is why I cited him. He is virtually the only Gnu who is a philosopher.<br /><br />Again your Atheism Paps is too low brow.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22179842502211441382012-01-22T10:26:32.203-07:002012-01-22T10:26:32.203-07:00Paps
>Yachov: "As even Dennett once said ...Paps<br /><br />>Yachov: "As even Dennett once said that just makes you a slave to an unconscious and unexamined philosophical point of view."<br /><br />>Yachov: QUOTE"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.—Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995."<br /><br />>Misconstrual at best, lying for jesus at worst.<br /><br />Actually I said in Post January 20, 2012 8:42 PM<br /><br />QUOTE"As even Dennett once said that just makes you a slave to an unconscious and unexamined philosophical point of view."<br /><br />I never said I was directly quoting Dennett I was paraphrasing. How is my paraphrase contrary to what he literally said?<br /><br />It isn't.<br /><br />Pathetic Peggy Hill.<br /><br /><br />>THE PROBLEM WITH PHILOSOPHY:<br /><br />An argument that is itself a philosophical argument. So how can I trust it? It's doubtful by it's own standards.<br /><br />>There is only science; science is not a product of philosophy. <br /><br />That is a historically incorrect statement. <br /><br />At this point Paps you are like the YEC for Atheism. <br /><br />The Facts are against you and you make up facts to suit your world view.<br /><br />Wither it was a deathless & inept defense of OTF in face of an Atheist philosopher or your inability to read.<br /><br />Paps your Atheism is too low brow for me even if I deny God tomorrow.<br /><br />Live with it.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19522960981459735662012-01-21T16:38:01.092-07:002012-01-21T16:38:01.092-07:00[cont]
You say, "Philosophy and Science are...[cont]<br /><br />You say, "Philosophy and Science are the key to natural knowledge. Not science alone since that concept can't be verified by science thus it can't be known to be true."<br /><br />How is this garble even meaningful? If philosophy and Science are the key[sic] to natural knowledge, then christian theology must be the key to unnatural knowledge. In the matter of, "Not science alone since that concept can't be verified by science thus it can't be known to be true" is simply wrong. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Science has delivered radical improvements in the human condition in spades, a self-standing, unsupported testimony that is verified, replicated, substantiated every single day. Science has delivered. People lead healthier, longer lives than ever before, with improved living conditions, improved personal mobility and increasingly becoming aware of our great responsibility in caring for this planet, not because of religion but in spite of religion. By contrast, religion continues to be a blight to science. <br /><br />You might wish to read these two articles:<br /><br />http://www.lifeway.com/Article/Research-Poll-Pastors-oppose-evolution-split-on-earths-age<br /><br />http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/news-flash-american-protestant-ministers-overwhelmingly-reject-evolution-are-split-on-earths-age/Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78599562561301002452012-01-21T16:37:36.158-07:002012-01-21T16:37:36.158-07:00Yachov: "As even Dennett once said that just...Yachov: "As even Dennett once said that just makes you a slave to an unconscious and unexamined philosophical point of view."<br /><br />Yachov: QUOTE"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.—Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995."<br /><br />Misconstrual at best, lying for jesus at worst, no question of it. Where are the correlative 'slave' and 'unconscious' elements in Dennett's statement? And where Dennett notes "there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination", this is a clear reference to theists who seek to mire science through the strawman tactic of theo-philosophical argument. Are you forgetting Dennett is a philosopher?<br /><br />Let's be clear about this Ben. There is only science; science is not a product of philosophy. Any philosophical addendum to science is construed as simply baggage, because the governing parameters of philosophy, good or bad cannot be verified or substantiated through empirical activity. The rules of engagement of philosophy are far looser than those that guide science. It is unfortunate that philosophy, and theology for that matter, is unable to discern truth and fact, its logic is always contingent upon the posited premise, regardless of the veracity or otherwise of that initial premise. Even William Lane Craig utilizes the ambiguity of the philosophical framework to morally justify godly perpetrated genocide when we all know deep in our hearts and in our guts, both atheists and reasoning christians alike, that genocide can never be morally justified. Good people do good things, Bad people do bad things. For good people to do bad things, that takes religion. <br /><br />From the Dictionary:<br />theology |θēˈäləjē| noun ( pl. -gies)<br />the study of the nature of God and religious belief.<br /><br />We know the first element is bunkum as to how one can know the nature of something that is unknowable as christians are ever touting their god to be. But the unknowable and the non-existent are indistinguishable. The second element, the study of religious belief, is the study of a purely earth-bond and natural phenomenon, and inextricably linked to the investigation of cultural mores.<br /><br />From THE PROBLEM WITH PHILOSOPHY:<br /><br />"Basically what we find, quite generally, is the threat of magic or elimination in the face of the theoretical obduracy of the phenomenon that invites philosophical attention. The phenomenon presents initial problems of possibility, which we try to dissolve with a domesticating theory, but there is always the danger that the failure of this undertaking will leave us facing magic or elimination or unwanted inexplicabilities. Free will, for instance, looks upon early inspection to be impossible, so we try to find some conception of it that permits its existence, but this conception always turns out to be dubiously reductive and distorting, leaving us with the unpalatable options of magic, elimination or quietism.(14) And so we hop unhappily from one unsatisfactory option to the next; or dig our heels (squintingly) into a position that seems the least intellectually unconscionable of the bunch."<br /><br />You might wish to read the rest of Professor Colin McGinn's review of the fundamental problems with philosophy at<br />http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousness97/papers/ProblemOfPhilosophy.html<br /><br /><br />Cont.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8365881048988679632012-01-21T14:50:38.031-07:002012-01-21T14:50:38.031-07:00"So you have forgotten I believe Evolution is..."So you have forgotten I believe Evolution is compatible with Theism & you are trolling out your low-brow anti-YEC polemics?"<br /><br />But you still an EC, evolutionary creationist.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57353713160240823102012-01-21T14:19:12.522-07:002012-01-21T14:19:12.522-07:00Then from now on we must ignore him for his own go...<i>Then from now on we must ignore him for his own good.<br /><br />Thanks Walter.</i><br /><br />Yeah, seconding this. This didn't seem like troll behavior to me. And though it was a minor flag at best, the response I saw for 'Do you know who Jekyll and Hyde are?' struck me as odd. Either way, I doubt Walter would say this lightly, or that he'd be kidding.<br /><br />I'm done with this one.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61694717054757294392012-01-21T13:32:39.704-07:002012-01-21T13:32:39.704-07:00Oh really. Is that what Jesus would do? Last time ...Oh really. Is that what Jesus would do? Last time I checked Jesus said He came for the sick. He hung out with them so that He could try to help them. You sound like a religious, holier than thou, Pharisee. You're full of hatred and abuse. Mostly against those who suffer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44812715171853226892012-01-21T10:24:20.189-07:002012-01-21T10:24:20.189-07:00>If this is the same Cole that posts on Loftus&...>If this is the same Cole that posts on Loftus' blog, then the man has a medical condition that is contributing to his rapid swings in belief.<br /><br />Then from now on we must ignore him for his own good.<br /><br />Thanks Walter.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56472591547862315262012-01-21T10:23:19.828-07:002012-01-21T10:23:19.828-07:00>regarding evolution and creationism.
So you h...>regarding evolution and creationism.<br /><br />So you have forgotten I believe Evolution is compatible with Theism & you are trolling out your low-brow anti-YEC polemics?<br /><br />My friend I learned anti-YEC polemics from reading Catholic sources.<br /><br />What's the point of you then?<br /><br />Also you are still equating philosophy with Theology there Paps.<br /><br />>Another apologetical lie perpetrated.<br /><br />QUOTE"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.—Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995.<br /><br />Go look it up for yourself.<br /><br />Philosophy and Science are the key to natural knowledge. Not science alone since that concept can't be verified by science thus it can't be known to be true.<br /><br />AG Flew at the height of his Atheism abandoned it. Your still clinging too it like a YEC clings to discredited 19th century Global Flood "science". It's quite pathetic.<br /><br />Your Peggy Hill Atheism is of little interest to me. I prefer something more sophisticated.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28327570995487148072012-01-21T10:19:15.224-07:002012-01-21T10:19:15.224-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.com