tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7842309192322651406..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Science Vindicates Religion (sort of) Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66740925994925294662015-01-31T16:48:25.306-07:002015-01-31T16:48:25.306-07:00"with shouts of "Fatima""
The..."<i>with shouts of "Fatima"</i>"<br /><br />There was no shouting. I whispered it. Consider it a "still, small voice".B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70812327342297117812015-01-30T21:49:14.646-07:002015-01-30T21:49:14.646-07:00"Godidit is a bad explanation unless, of cour..."Godidit is a bad explanation unless, of course, God did it."<br /><br />The first half is of the statement is logical and reasoned. The second half of the statement is unfounded, unsubstantiated bumpf.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14356374312188658532015-01-30T19:40:54.610-07:002015-01-30T19:40:54.610-07:00Goddidit is the automatic, unthinking response of ...Goddidit is the automatic, unthinking response of theists to any question of how to explain things that are not fully understood. It sounds ridiculous because it is. They automatically dismiss any realistic explanation, and jump straight to the supernatural, with shouts of "Fatima" to drown out any voice of reason. They swear up and down that supernatural phenomena do happen, but all they have in the way of evidence is stories and anecdotes, which they believe as a matter of faith - not because there is good reason to believe them.<br /><br />If God really did it, it still wouldn't be a good explanation, because there still isn't any good reason to believe God did it. <a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/09/17/faith-and-epistemological-quicksand/" rel="nofollow">Faith is not good epistemology.</a><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33013644054107898332015-01-30T18:45:18.772-07:002015-01-30T18:45:18.772-07:00Godidit is a bad explanation unless, of course, Go...Godidit is a bad explanation unless, of course, God did it.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89187534771408726592015-01-30T18:16:01.816-07:002015-01-30T18:16:01.816-07:00The issue supernaturalists have never been able to...The issue supernaturalists have never been able to reconcile is the conclusion that science has demonstrated the irremediable limitation underlying theism as an explanatory paradigm. It is unsupported by any substantive epistemological foundation, subject only to interpretation, re-interpretation, re-re-interpretation of dogma, and religious faith,itself a product almost universally inculcated from early childhood. Supernaturalists have never been able to reconcile the historical fact:<br /><br />"The rise of .... science progressively undermines not only the ancient geocentric conception of the cosmos, but, with it, the entire set of presuppositions that had served to constrain and guide philosophical inquiry. The dramatic success of .... science in explaining the natural world, in accounting for a wide variety of phenomena by appeal to a relatively small number of elegant mathematical formulae, promotes philosophy (in the broad sense of the time, which includes natural science) from a handmaiden of theology, constrained by its purposes and methods, to an independent force with the power and authority to challenge the old and construct the new, in the realms both of theory and practice, on the basis of its own principles." Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy<br /><br />This is the nub of contemporary debate. The theistic approach to modern philosophical discourse can not, will not be able to be sustained as a feasible and reasonable explanatory system into the future. It is a system of its time, a time that is inexorably passing as humanity's knowledge base grows and enhances our understanding.<br /><br /><br /> Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22615743440904145112015-01-30T17:53:43.307-07:002015-01-30T17:53:43.307-07:00"At the very least, some kind of non-naturali..."At the very least, some kind of non-naturalism seems far more probable to me than the scientism of the New Atheists and company."<br /><br />Forget about scientism. How about just looking at the evidence?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67008745122891342142015-01-30T16:55:03.480-07:002015-01-30T16:55:03.480-07:00""You blatantly load the dice and then p...<i>""You blatantly load the dice and then pretend that it's not totally obvious to everyone.""</i><br /><br />It's called evidence. Evidence built on earlier evidence, in a sustained, empirical, factual, testable and cumulative way, open always to the possibility to falsification. Contrast that with theism - the goddidit explanatory system. Theists are oblivious to the obvious.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82157223435786426662015-01-30T16:23:45.334-07:002015-01-30T16:23:45.334-07:00Ims
ON your view, if science neither supports nor...Ims<br /><br />ON your view, if science neither supports nor refutes the Supreme Metaphysicsl Principle, why is believing in God so simple minded and why should it stop us from pursuing scientific knowledge? It does seem to me that this is a false dichotomy.<br /><br /> I have considered the possibility that there is no God. I suppose that for much of my life I have presumed the truth of naturalism because that's what many intelligent people believe. After having taken an active interest in these matters, I have changed my mind. At the very least, some kind of non-naturalism seems far more probable to me than the scientism of the New Atheists and company. It 's funny, it was one of the Sam Harris books that opened it up for me. Not that you care of course.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14606126830645320692015-01-30T13:50:59.682-07:002015-01-30T13:50:59.682-07:00"Why is the "ultimate metaphysical princ..."Why is the "ultimate metaphysical principle", God, so objectionable ? And how does the success of science refute the ultimate metaphysical principle."<br /><br />All I say is that it is not entailed by the evidence. There is no scientific evidence that leads to the conclusion that goddidit. It's not that science refutes your postulation. It's just that science doesn't support it. But what makes it objectionable is the notion that you can have one simple answer that put an end to the quest for further understanding (and that is precisely what is implied by "the ultimate metaphysical principle").<br /><br />"Physical existence as such suggests the supreme metaphysical principle."<br /><br />No, only your presuppositions suggest such a principle. Science makes no such presupposition.<br /><br />"I guess what I find frustrating is the reaction that it's preposterous to think such things."<br /><br />It's not preposterous so much as simple-minded, because you ignore all other possibilities.<br /><br />"Ims has said Goddidit several times. Isn't that setting up a false dichotomy? Scientific explanation OR God "doing it"? Why should we think these are mutually exclusive?"<br /><br />False dichotomy between naturalism/materialism and supernaturalism/god-belief? Please. The two are mutually exclusive by definition. How can you call that a false dichotomy?<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12797998745565116042015-01-30T12:04:38.611-07:002015-01-30T12:04:38.611-07:00I'm really don't want to bust anyone's...I'm really don't want to bust anyone's chops, but I do want to understand the atheo- materialist better. Why is the "ultimate metaphysical principle", God, so objectionable ? And how does the success of science refute the ultimate metaphysical principle.<br /><br />If one says there is no physical evidence, I am puzzled. Physical existence as such suggests the supreme metaphysical principle. Granted, that doesn't make it true, but it's certainly reasonable. I guess what I find frustrating is the reaction that it's preposterous to think such things.<br /><br />Ims has said Goddidit several times. Isn't that setting up a false dichotomy? Scientific explanation OR God "doing it"? Why should we think these are mutually exclusive?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81294074974035331142015-01-30T10:50:39.100-07:002015-01-30T10:50:39.100-07:00"Another comedy moment to keep for posterity...."Another comedy moment to keep for posterity."<br /><br />More farting into the wind.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32252271568593863412015-01-30T10:50:07.134-07:002015-01-30T10:50:07.134-07:00"Fatima"
A wide variety of anecdotal st..."Fatima"<br /><br />A wide variety of anecdotal stories, ranging from perfectly natural natural to wildly hysterical. The people there certainly don't agree on what they saw.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1252980505330718562015-01-30T10:27:50.640-07:002015-01-30T10:27:50.640-07:00Grodrigues,
I'm still laughing over Linton...Grodrigues,<br /><br />I'm still laughing over Linton's "[The universe] can indeed be created 'ex nihilo' on its own, based simply on current mathematics and prevailing scientific knowledge." Had no idea that mathematics and "current scientific knowledge" were synonymous with nothing.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57582770906107483982015-01-30T10:24:46.552-07:002015-01-30T10:24:46.552-07:00"Show us one."
Fatima."<i>Show us one.</i>"<br /><br />Fatima.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45138564115459165622015-01-30T10:18:41.818-07:002015-01-30T10:18:41.818-07:00@im-skeptical:
"Quantum vacuum is indistingu...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"Quantum vacuum is indistinguishable from nothing."<br /><br />Another comedy moment to keep for posterity.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71021883630846033052015-01-30T10:07:56.737-07:002015-01-30T10:07:56.737-07:00Patrick,
"According to the following contrib...Patrick,<br /><br />"According to the following contribution there were atheists among scientists who were very reluctant to accept the big bang theory due to its metaphysical implications"<br /><br />First, you should be aware that whatever you read on EvolutionNews is theistic biased, pseudo-scientific clap-trap. Any information there should not be taken at face value, but must be verified by cross-checking from legitimate sources.<br /><br />Second, this article says nothing about the initial acceptance of big bang theory. It discusses further development of cosmological theories in more recent years. In particular, it mentions John Maddox in 1989 citing the need for a more complete explanation that goes beyond the simple universe-from-nothing big bang - not that he didn't believe the big bang theory, which is universally accepted in science.<br /><br />Third, note that this is entirely consistent with what I said: "But the big bang theory alone does leave open the question of what caused it. Do you expect science to throw up its hands and proclaim "goddidit'?"<br /><br />"The philosopher and physicist David Albert published a review of Krauss’s book"<br /><br />First, Albert's main criticism of Krauss is that the quantum vacuum is something rather than nothing. That is a metaphysical view, and not verifiable or testable. If you start with something, and you remove whatever is there, what's left is nothing (or the quantum vacuum). Quantum vacuum is indistinguishable from nothing. Yes, things come from it. That's what the physics predicts, and what Krauss says.<br /><br />Second, if you want to say that Krauss is wrong, then why are you criticizing scientists who are trying to develop cosmological theories that go beyond simple big bang? It seems to me that you don't even know what your own metaphysical belief is. Was there nothing before the big bang, or was there something? If there was nothing, that would be consistent with the theory of "goddidit", and it would also be consistent with Krauss. On the other hand, if there was something, that wouldn't support your belief that God created the universe from nothing. In that case, it certainly would be reasonable to develop a cosmological theory that goes beyond the big bang. In that case, the folks at EvolutionNews are just farting into the wind.<br /><br /><br />"there is still no consensus among evolution scientists concerning the mechanism of evolution."<br /><br />Now you have proven beyond question that you don't know what you are talking about (are you Illion in disguise?). This is pretty much <a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIMechanisms.shtml" rel="nofollow">settled science</a>.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27110170083319400792015-01-30T10:07:42.251-07:002015-01-30T10:07:42.251-07:00Bob,
Show us one. You insist that they happen - ...Bob,<br /><br />Show us one. You insist that they happen - give us some evidence besides your blinkered faith.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75218165946971760102015-01-30T09:49:53.188-07:002015-01-30T09:49:53.188-07:00"No, I haven't seen one, end neither has ..."<i>No, I haven't seen one, end neither has anyone else. And there's a perfectly good reason for that: They don't ever happen.</i>"<br /><br /><b>Translation:</b> A is true. The reason A is true is because it's true.<br /><br />As I said, circular reasoning.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85134245456168070102015-01-30T06:18:41.122-07:002015-01-30T06:18:41.122-07:00In my view it is by no means the case that the his...In my view it is by no means the case that the history of science is supportive of naturalism. There are still no conclusive natural explanations for such basic natural phenomena as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, consciousness, and of the origin of species. On the other hand, scientific discoveries such as the idea that the universe has a beginning or the fine-tuning of the universe are certainly more supportive of theism than of naturalism.<br /><br />As for the claim that there is still no conclusive natural explanation with respect to the origin of species there are even evolution scientists who accept only natural explanations for the origin of species who acknowledge this claim, as there is still no consensus among evolution scientists concerning the mechanism of evolution.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13457898669117477472015-01-30T05:55:15.931-07:002015-01-30T05:55:15.931-07:00Papalinton: „And before theists get too excited, P...Papalinton: „And before theists get too excited, Prof Laurence Kraus, in his book, 'The Universe From Nothing' was presenting a case explaining that the universe as we know it can indeed be created 'ex nihilo' on its own, based simply on current mathematics and prevailing scientific knowledge, in direct response to the theological conception of 'ex nihilo', and without recourse to introducing an even more inexplicable and abstruse concept of an enacting supernatural entity.“<br /><br />The philosopher and physicist David Albert published a review of Krauss’s book in the “New York Times”, in which he rejected Krauss’s view that the universe could have come into being out of nothing. The review, which appeared in the “New York Times”, can be read in the following link:<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all& Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63920265973515324112015-01-30T05:53:42.670-07:002015-01-30T05:53:42.670-07:00im-skeptical: “Whose response was that? As far as ...im-skeptical: “Whose response was that? As far as I know, as soon as the evidence became available, the theory that explains it became widely accepted, except perhaps by a few.”<br /><br />According to the following contribution there were atheists among scientists who were very reluctant to accept the big bang theory due to its metaphysical implications:<br /><br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/big_bang_exterm077961.html Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56741621136613561462015-01-29T15:49:51.400-07:002015-01-29T15:49:51.400-07:00"You blatantly load the dice and then pretend..."You blatantly load the dice and then pretend that it's not totally obvious to everyone."<br /><br />That's right. Insistence on evidence-based beliefs instead of buying your religious dogma is loading the dice. It's stacking the deck. How can religious dogma rule the day if people insist on evidence? It's absurd. It's just not fair.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18907292126524003872015-01-29T14:57:44.167-07:002015-01-29T14:57:44.167-07:00"... You blatantly load the dice and then pre..."<i>... You blatantly load the dice and then pretend that it's not totally obvious to everyone. It's like a child who covers his eyes and thinks that no one can see him.</i>"<br /><br />Oh, now! Try to see it from I-pretend's point of view: he *knows* that he's a pot, so he assumes that everyone else must be a kettle.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63056933875458482672015-01-29T14:33:07.387-07:002015-01-29T14:33:07.387-07:00ims,
The issue is not whether naturalism is actua...ims,<br /><br />The issue is not whether naturalism is actually true or false. The issue is how you "understand" science's relationship to the truth of ultimate reality. <br /><br />If science, by definition, cannot accept anything that isn't non-teleological naturalism , what's the point of invoking it as an arbiter? You blatantly load the dice and then pretend that it's not totally obvious to everyone. It's like a child who covers his eyes and thinks that no one can see him.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79746395031723391062015-01-29T11:16:39.128-07:002015-01-29T11:16:39.128-07:00Im-a-pot: "Chris (with fingers in ears): &quo...<b>Im-a-pot:</b> "<i>Chris (with fingers in ears): "Goddidit ... la la la ... materialism bad ... la la la ... goddidit ... And that proves stinkhead materialists are wrong. So there!"</i>"<br /><br />As I've mentioned, Dawkins' Parrot has a great future in theatre, <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2015/01/artificial-life-is-not-here.html?showComment=1421952427265#c378449729468568659" rel="nofollow">as a projectionist</a>Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com