tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post113517962570947806..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Further notes on "the supernatural"' and testabilityVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1135199916740201392005-12-21T14:18:00.000-07:002005-12-21T14:18:00.000-07:00So is there a principle reason for believing that ...So is there a principle reason for believing that even if there are unobservable agents at work, science has to ignore it? <BR/><BR/>Should the opponents of ID be using "in principle" arguments? Are they better off just going with "in fact" arguments.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1135199219621490782005-12-21T14:06:00.000-07:002005-12-21T14:06:00.000-07:00A big difference between theism/religion and the u...A big difference between theism/religion and the unobservables of modern physics is that the former postulates unobservable *agents* and the latter doesn't.<BR/><BR/>Inferences about actions in the world being caused by unobservable agents seems to be the central component of religion. I recommend Pascal Boyer's _Religion Explained_ for a naturalistic account of why people make such inferences (and more particularly, why they make the specific kinds of inferences that they do and not others). His account addresses the phenomenon of religion in general, so even if you believe that some religion in particular is true, his account is worthy of consideration as an explanation for *other* religions.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1135187792853658262005-12-21T10:56:00.000-07:002005-12-21T10:56:00.000-07:00You seem eager to include the supernatural into sc...You seem eager to include the supernatural into science.<BR/>Isn't it incumbent upon you to define what you think the term supernatural means?<BR/>GregAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1135185034399479672005-12-21T10:10:00.000-07:002005-12-21T10:10:00.000-07:00Camping and Lindsey did not stop believing in God ...Camping and Lindsey did not stop believing in God because if it, though I don't wonder if some of their followers didn't. What would have been refuted would be the claim "Christ will return in this generation." <BR/><BR/>Before we can continue, we need a definition of the term "supernatural." What does it mean? Can it be defined in such a way as to exclude God but include unobservable theoretical entities?Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1135183401336073282005-12-21T09:43:00.000-07:002005-12-21T09:43:00.000-07:00Did Camping or Lindsy stop believing in God becaus...Did Camping or Lindsy stop believing in God because their predicitons were wrong? If not, then their predictions were not real tests of the supernatural.<BR/>If the intelligent designer were really a natural being, why do these discussions so quickly turn to the supernatural? Why aren't the proponents of ID trying to locate and describe this natural being?<BR/>And if it is a natural being ID is going to have to provide the mechanics of his creative work. Doesn't ID at heart abhor mechanistic descriptions?<BR/>GregAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com