|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Arguing for atheism by arguing against theism
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
I'm not sure the debate over which side has the default religious position (null hypothesis/burden of proof) really works. Surely the process we're going through is establishing a world-view which best fits the data known to us?
So the existence of Zeus would be mutually seen as improbable because our life experiences suggest that a myth best accounts for the known data.
Now a Christian might claim that there is sufficient data available to deduce the existence of God. An atheist would dispute that claim. Neither can appeal to being the default, but must debate the evidence, and which world-view any evidence best supports.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Not offended so much as displaying my knee-jerk dislike for anybody trying to tell somebody else what their inner states are like. Hacks me off, plus it's illogical. But thank you for your courteous retraction.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I would say rather that some theists are at war with science and some atheists use science to battle religion.
And I say once again, these are fools errands.
This.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
If you're not appealing to consequences then why does it matter if an idea is "implication-rich" or if rejecting it "involves adherence to a set of concepts"? That's no good indicator of the truth or falsity of a proposition.
Well, it depends what you mean by 'consequences'. In the "argument from consequences" fallacy, 'consequences' are defined as favourable outcomes which are appealed to as a means of supporting a truth claim. Now, of course, I certainly believe that God produces favourable outcomes, but that is irrelevant to my argument concerning 'positive' world views, and burden of proof. In fact, I've heard atheists support their view by an appeal to favourable consequences, such as alleged freedom from the bondage of religion, freedom from what they consider to be irrational thinking and practices etc.
What I am talking about are conceptual implications. Let me give you an example from nature: the Atlantic Ocean exists. Are there any implications to the existence of the Atlantic Ocean? Well of course there are. Anyone wanting to travel west from Europe to America cannot do so by car, because there is a huge body of water preventing them from doing so. Someone wishing to make the journey in a boat will, of course, be able to do so. So someone who is an "An-Atlantic-Ocean-ist" cannot simply say: "There are no implications to my belief in 'Anatlanticoceanism'. It's just a non-belief in the existence of the Atlantic Ocean. Nothing more." That is utterly absurd. The lack of belief in the existence of this body of water has huge implications, on which there is clearly a burden of proof. This has nothing to do with whether the Atlantic Ocean is a useful, favourable or pleasurable thing or not.
Likewise, if an intelligent creator does not exist, then obviously life could not have arisen by means of intelligence. That, therefore, implies that some other explanation is required to account for the phenomenon of life. That is a conceptual position - a truth claim - on which there is a burden of proof.
Or if there is no absolute mind or rationality behind the universe, then reason has to be sourced from nature alone. This again is a truth claim, on which there is a burden of proof.
Or if there is no ultimate source of a moral sense, then it has to be claimed that morality has been constructed by nature alone. This is also a truth claim, on which there is a burden of proof.
Our understanding of first cause, free will and consciousness are also deeply affected by the ideas of the existence / non-existence of God.
Clearly atheism cannot exist in a conceptual vacuum. That is why I don't accept the argument that atheism is not a 'positive' world view, but merely 'non-belief' in God and nothing more.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, if they're physicists, ask them if they think atoms really exist, and if that is a scientific claim.
If asked directly, that's immediately putting them on guard. The question is what would happen if you led the talk round in that direction without flagging why you're doing it.
Whatever physicists say, I'd say that 'atoms exist,' is a scientific claim. The claim that when physicists say 'atoms exist,' they mean 'the appearances are correctly predicted by models that use atoms,' is a philosophical claim.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The lack of belief in the existence of this body of water has huge implications, on which there is clearly a burden of proof.
So what? The fact that there are "huge implications" to a body of water existing (or not existing) has no effect on whether it actually exists (or not). Nor should it effect the distribution of the burden of proof. That burden may be met more easily for something with huge implications but that doesn't in any way shift that burden from the affirming party.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
If asked directly, that's immediately putting them on guard. The question is what would happen if you led the talk round in that direction without flagging why you're doing it.
It might be the question to you in this "Aha, gotcha!" world of internet wibbling that we so enjoy, but to the body of knowledge known as science it is a complete and utter irrelevance. Nobody gives a shit what a particular scientist thinks in unguarded moments, it's the body of published work, subject to scrutiny by peers that matters. And the claims therein are understood to be provisional pending better understanding, more evidence and more predictions.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Yorick
Atheism is better than religion in the same way that walking on your own two legs is better than walking with crutches.
Other than the trendy modernist assertion that individualism is better than communalism you haven't said much here.
One can argue that drawing on the tools of belief in a higher power (which means it's not "all about us"), listening and learning from the accumulated wisdom expressed in old sacred stories, listening and learning from others in community and utilizing long-tested spiritual practises and disciplines (meditation, prayer, self-denial and sacrificial acts of charity) helps make those legs stronger, sturdier and more able to stand the race called life than denying oneself use of those tools.
To me, saying that we should deny using any tool available to us to help us grow and mature is as silly as refusing to borrow a can-opener from another because one believes a strong person should open a can of soup without help by pounding it on the counter long enough.
There's nothing wrong with crutches if they help one get stronger in aspects of our lives where none of are strong, at least initially. Using them makes one sensible, not weak.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
If asked directly, that's immediately putting them on guard. The question is what would happen if you led the talk round in that direction without flagging why you're doing it.
It might be the question to you in this "Aha, gotcha!" world of internet wibbling that we so enjoy, but to the body of knowledge known as science it is a complete and utter irrelevance. Nobody gives a shit what a particular scientist thinks in unguarded moments, it's the body of published work, subject to scrutiny by peers that matters.
Very few scientists publish papers on the philosophy of science. Which is just as well, since that's not their remit; although if a paper were good enough, I imagine one of the peer-reviewed philosophical journals might publish it.
quote:
And the claims therein are understood to be provisional pending better understanding, more evidence and more predictions.
True but not what is being talked about. What is being talked about is whether science describes reality, not if it's provisional. I think everybody here recognizes it's provisional.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's also about whether 'science describes reality' is a scientific claim. I would say that it's a philosophical claim. I don't think anyone questions that it's a reasonable claim to make, but I would question that it's a scientific one.
If it's a scientific claim, what is the evidence for it? One of the usual arguments for it is that science is reliable, but surely that is an argument from within the philosophy of science?
To rephrase this: there is obviously a connection between science and reality, but science cannot discern it.
[ 26. February 2013, 07:18: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Four pages and no one has yet asked "what do we mean by the term 'fair'? According to who's standard are we judging fairness".
Is this a record?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about whether 'science describes reality' is a scientific claim. I would say that it's a philosophical claim. I don't think anyone questions that it's a reasonable claim to make, but I would question that it's a scientific one.
If it's a scientific claim, what is the evidence for it? One of the usual arguments for it is that science is reliable, but surely that is an argument from within the philosophy of science?
To rephrase this: there is obviously a connection between science and reality, but science cannot discern it.
I think it's that it seems to work. Rockets get to Mars, computers compute, nuclear reactors react etc. etc.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
It might be the question to you in this "Aha, gotcha!" world of internet wibbling that we so enjoy, but to the body of knowledge known as science it is a complete and utter irrelevance. Nobody gives a shit what a particular scientist thinks in unguarded moments, it's the body of published work, subject to scrutiny by peers that matters. And the claims therein are understood to be provisional pending better understanding, more evidence and more predictions.
It's standard procedure in psychology not to let the experimental subjects know what you're testing for. I'm not proposing anything more 'ah gotcha' than that.
Are you saying science is a body of provisional claims, or is it a body of 'knowledge'?
Why is it only the published work that counts as science? Why not all the stuff that goes on in the laboratory? Science is surely at least as much an activity as a set of results. Surely someone reading the published work must be part of the activity of science? Or does it not matter if a paper is lying unread?
And, as mousethief says, there's a difference between saying that the sciences make provisional claims about reality and saying that the sciences make definitive claims about appearances. The last isn't true anyway: if physical scientists later on for what are now unimaginable reasons decide that atoms don't really exist, they wouldn't say that the appearances have changed. They'll say that the appearances never were the appearances of atoms; they were always the appearances of something else. Provisionality is neither here nor there.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To rephrase this: there is obviously a connection between science and reality, but science cannot discern it.
I think it's that it seems to work. Rockets get to Mars, computers compute, nuclear reactors react etc. etc.
It's true that the ability of science to get results that have practical applications has been a key art of its justification since the seventeenth century. But still I think most or many researchers would say that it is also valuable as producing knowledge for its own sake.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about whether 'science describes reality' is a scientific claim. I would say that it's a philosophical claim.
It may not be a scientific claim. But it might be a scientific presupposition or assumption. Indeed, if the philosophical claim is that science describes reality, one of the supporting arguments would surely be that the activity of science presupposes it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about whether 'science describes reality' is a scientific claim. I would say that it's a philosophical claim.
It may not be a scientific claim. But it might be a scientific presupposition or assumption. Indeed, if the philosophical claim is that science describes reality, one of the supporting arguments would surely be that the activity of science presupposes it.
This is definitely where we start entering into the area of "Scientism." So when Scientists start making philosophical claims, which is not their remit, it is not "scientific" but "scientismic."
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To rephrase this: there is obviously a connection between science and reality, but science cannot discern it.
I think it's that it seems to work. Rockets get to Mars, computers compute, nuclear reactors react etc. etc.
It's true that the ability of science to get results that have practical applications has been a key art of its justification since the seventeenth century. But still I think most or many researchers would say that it is also valuable as producing knowledge for its own sake.
You misunderstand me. My point was the fact that it works is good evidence that there's a strong link between scientifically derived models and reality.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
So what? The fact that there are "huge implications" to a body of water existing (or not existing) has no effect on whether it actually exists (or not). Nor should it effect the distribution of the burden of proof. That burden may be met more easily for something with huge implications but that doesn't in any way shift that burden from the affirming party.
But if the existence of something has huge implications, then it follows that the denial of that thing also has huge implications. And all those implications - whether flowing from the affirmation or denial of that thing - constitute a 'positive' viewpoint, on which there is, therefore, a burden of proof.
Perhaps my example of the Atlantic Ocean wasn't a very good one, because, of course, we have direct empirical evidence that that body of water exists (although, of course, the theory of empiricism is itself a positive position, which, strictly speaking, still needs to be defended, hence the history of much of philosophy). Let me give another example: the Big Bang.
We do not have direct empirical evidence of the Big Bang, in the sense of actually observing this event taking place. The event of the Big Bang is believed on the basis of inference from various observed phenomena, which are interpreted in a certain way according to certain assumptions. Now suppose someone should come along and say: "I don't believe in the Big Bang. I am an 'A-Big-Bang-ist'. I do not need to defend or explain my Abigbangism, because it is just non-belief in the Big Bang, which, after all, is something for which we have no direct empirical evidence."
I think it would be absurd for someone to say this. Clearly, in scientific circles, if someone were to deny the Big Bang, it would be taken for granted that that person would need to justify that claim, by coming up with some other cosmological theory that would obviate the need for such an event. And the reason for this is the fact that the event of the Big Bang has conceptual implications.
So I really cannot understand what your objection is. Atheism falls in exactly the same epistemic category as 'Abigbangism' (unlike 'A-fairies-down-the-bottom-of-my-garden-ism', which has no implications). Both have implications, and therefore both involve at least some kind of 'positive' view about reality.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But if the existence of something has huge implications, then it follows that the denial of that thing also has huge implications. And all those implications - whether flowing from the affirmation or denial of that thing - constitute a 'positive' viewpoint, on which there is, therefore, a burden of proof.
Are you saying that any given worldview has to be able to answer every single possible question about the nature of reality, and if they cannot you will consider their whole worldview false?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Are you saying that any given worldview has to be able to answer every single possible question about the nature of reality, and if they cannot you will consider their whole worldview false?
No.
What I am saying is that if the existence of something has major implications concerning the nature of reality, then it follows that the denial of the existence of that thing also has major implications. Therefore both positions necessarily involve positive claims about reality. And so if there is a burden of proof on one of those positions, there must also be a burden of proof on the other.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, fair enough; but Humanism doesn't need the extra element of god.
It does, if it involves love of others, and God is the source of love.
quote:
I suppose the follow-up question is, which is the true image in your opinion?
No image is adequate, all will be limited by human capacity and language. We have a true example in Jesus, who shows us God by engaging with our humanity. We have glimpses of the greatness of God, of God's goodness, power, light, and love.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about whether 'science describes reality' is a scientific claim. I would say that it's a philosophical claim.
It may not be a scientific claim. But it might be a scientific presupposition or assumption. Indeed, if the philosophical claim is that science describes reality, one of the supporting arguments would surely be that the activity of science presupposes it.
I think that's a good argument for scientific realism, since science obviously has philosophical foundations. But then philosophical foundations are not arrived at scientifically. In fact, it's doubtful if science can be defined scientifically.
The other good argument for scientific realism is the 'miracle' argument, that if science doesn't describe reality reasonably accurately, it's a miracle that it works so well. But of course, this is itself a philosophical argument.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To rephrase this: there is obviously a connection between science and reality, but science cannot discern it.
I think it's that it seems to work. Rockets get to Mars, computers compute, nuclear reactors react etc. etc.
It's true that the ability of science to get results that have practical applications has been a key art of its justification since the seventeenth century. But still I think most or many researchers would say that it is also valuable as producing knowledge for its own sake.
You misunderstand me. My point was the fact that it works is good evidence that there's a strong link between scientifically derived models and reality.
Sure. Physical reality.
But life is much more than just physical reality.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Or perhaps a better rephrasement would be: reality is much more than just physical reality.
Unless of course, you are a materialist. But then that is an inadequate philosophy that collapses in on itself at the slightest provocation of broader thought.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am saying is that if the existence of something has major implications concerning the nature of reality, then it follows that the denial of the existence of that thing also has major implications. Therefore both positions necessarily involve positive claims about reality. And so if there is a burden of proof on one of those positions, there must also be a burden of proof on the other.
So the burden of proof is on every worldview. How is that different to what I said in the first place?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But if the existence of something has huge implications, then it follows that the denial of that thing also has huge implications. And all those implications - whether flowing from the affirmation or denial of that thing - constitute a 'positive' viewpoint, on which there is, therefore, a burden of proof.
No. As pointed out before, this is a pretty pure example of the argument from consequences. "I like/dislike the implications of X existing" is not proof that X exists/doesn't exist.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps my example of the Atlantic Ocean wasn't a very good one, because, of course, we have direct empirical evidence that that body of water exists.
No, it's a pretty good example. The ease with which the burden of proof may be met in no way shifts where the burden of proof lies. For instance, an ocean between New York and Los Angeles would have just as many implications as an ocean between New York and London. That doesn't mean we're required to believe that the Niobrara Sea still exists on the grounds that the Atlantic Ocean exists. After all, if the fact that the Atlantic Ocean would have "huge implications" proves it must exist, the Niobrara Sea must exist for the same reason.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let me give another example: the Big Bang.
We do not have direct empirical evidence of the Big Bang, in the sense of actually observing this event taking place. The event of the Big Bang is believed on the basis of inference from various observed phenomena, which are interpreted in a certain way according to certain assumptions. Now suppose someone should come along and say: "I don't believe in the Big Bang. I am an 'A-Big-Bang-ist'. I do not need to defend or explain my Abigbangism, because it is just non-belief in the Big Bang, which, after all, is something for which we have no direct empirical evidence."
I'm not sure there's a meaningful between "direct evidence" and "indirect evidence", at least as far as this particular topic goes. There's just "evidence" of varying degrees of strength. At any rate, no one believes in the Big Bang because it's a big important idea and therefore must be true. The Big Bang is believed because it has met the burden of proof. "Meeting the burden of proof" is not the same as "not required to provide proof".
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think it would be absurd for someone to say this. Clearly, in scientific circles, if someone were to deny the Big Bang, it would be taken for granted that that person would need to justify that claim, by coming up with some other cosmological theory that would obviate the need for such an event. And the reason for this is the fact that the event of the Big Bang has conceptual implications.
No, the reason for this is that the Big Bang has met its burden of proof. The fact that it has "conceptual implications" has no bearing on whether it's true or not.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Sergius -Melli
I have a couple of hours left before my computer has to be packed up!
I think that nearly all animal behaviour that could be construed as questioning, or contemplating will have to remain in the realm of instinctive, survival strategies until such time as a human interpretation of it is unnecessary, and that would be because sufficient real evidence had been found. In language we might give what we interpret as spiritual thought in animals a name such as philosophy, but that is to add far too much speculation. I cannot dismiss entirely some sort of reasoning, since that would, I know, be unscientific, but would be extremely surprised if that was of more than practical use. I was talking to a friend yesterday whose son is working with a team on animal behaviours and I mentioned this question! It sounds interesting workand you never know, he might come up with a better answer!
Yes, at this point in human knowledge and understanding, I think that multiple, observed and documented material would be required to make a case for animal thinking being spiritual beyond a very, very primitive level. And I'd find it difficult not to still be sceptical! But it won't happen in the near future.
Animals must of course use body language etc but these are through the senses and copied from adults because they have ensured the species survival.
Can you think of one animal behaviour which cannot be interpreted more rationally in non-spiritual ways?
I can't think of a reason wy anyone would want to deny or prevent esthetic or philosophical thought and communication among animals, but I'd put it in the vanishingly small likelihood heding for now.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Or perhaps a better rephrasement would be: reality is much more than just physical reality.
Maybe it is, but (a) science isn't interested in that, and (b) we weren't talking about it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am saying is that if the existence of something has major implications concerning the nature of reality, then it follows that the denial of the existence of that thing also has major implications. Therefore both positions necessarily involve positive claims about reality. And so if there is a burden of proof on one of those positions, there must also be a burden of proof on the other.
So the burden of proof is on every worldview. How is that different to what I said in the first place?
If I might chime in at this point, the claim that I've encountered is that this isn't the case because atheism gets a free pass.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
No. As pointed out before, this is a pretty pure example of the argument from consequences. "I like/dislike the implications of X existing" is not proof that X exists/doesn't exist.
Well, I find your response bizarre.
How can a conceptual implication (i.e. that which a particular idea conceptually and logically implies) be a 'consequence' in the utilitarian sense in which you are using the word, as per "the argument from consequences" fallacy?
Let's say that I am doing a Sudoku puzzle, and the information that is already printed in the puzzle has the implication that a particular blank square should contain the number '2'. How is that number '2' in that particular square a 'consequence' in the sense that you are using the word? It makes not a scrap of difference whether I personally like or dislike the number '2' being in that particular square. Logic tells me that it has to go there! What has that got to do with my personal feelings about the matter?!
I really think you are misapplying the argument from consequences. Or perhaps you are using the word 'implication' in a way that is very different from the way I am using the word?
Furthermore, I have not even been arguing for the truth of theism in the comments to which you have been responding on this thread. I am simply making the point that there is a burden of proof on atheism as well as on theism.
[ 26. February 2013, 14:53: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let's say that I am doing a Sudoku puzzle, and the information that is already printed in the puzzle has the implication that a particular blank square should contain the number '2'. How is that number '2' in that particular square a 'consequence' in the sense that you are using the word? It makes not a scrap of difference whether I personally like or dislike the number '2' being in that particular square. Logic tells me that it has to go there! What has that got to do with my personal feelings about the matter?!
Yes, because reaching a conclusion based on evidence is not affected by exterior implications. Glad you're finally getting it.
Illustrating further, from preferred example of the Atlantic Ocean:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am talking about are conceptual implications. Let me give you an example from nature: the Atlantic Ocean exists. Are there any implications to the existence of the Atlantic Ocean? Well of course there are. Anyone wanting to travel west from Europe to America cannot do so by car, because there is a huge body of water preventing them from doing so. Someone wishing to make the journey in a boat will, of course, be able to do so.
Wanting to drive a car from North America to Europe has no effect on whether or not the Atlantic Ocean exists, nor does wanting to make the same trip via boat. In other words, the implication that if the Atlantic Ocean exists you won't be able to drive from New York to Paris has no bearing on whether or not the Atlantic Ocean actually exists. The "conceptual implication" is irrelevant.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Yes, because reaching a conclusion based on evidence is not affected by exterior implications.
What do you mean by "exterior implications"? I am talking about logical implications. And I am also very glad that you acknowledge that logical inference counts as 'evidence'! (Therefore 'evidence' is not limited to the merely empirical).
So we're both getting somewhere!
I'll get back to you about your points re my Atlantic analogy and also the Big Bang.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What do you mean by "exterior implications"?
Something along the lines of "if the Atlantic Ocean didn't exist, I could drive from New York to Paris. Therefore the Atlantic Ocean does not exist."
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Perhaps my example of the Atlantic Ocean wasn't a very good one, because, of course, we have direct empirical evidence that that body of water exists.
No, it's a pretty good example. The ease with which the burden of proof may be met in no way shifts where the burden of proof lies. For instance, an ocean between New York and Los Angeles would have just as many implications as an ocean between New York and London. That doesn't mean we're required to believe that the Niobrara Sea still exists on the grounds that the Atlantic Ocean exists. After all, if the fact that the Atlantic Ocean would have "huge implications" proves it must exist, the Niobrara Sea must exist for the same reason.
But I am not talking about the mere fact that any ocean has implications. I am talking about the particular implications of one particular ocean as an analogy to describe something else. If we want to take a journey from London to New York and we wish to travel west, then the particular environment that exists between those two cities (west of London and east of New York) has to be taken into account. Both the affirmation and the denial of this particular ocean feeds into the consideration of what kind of journey could be made between those two cities. Therefore both sides have to present their case (ignoring the obvious fact that there is direct empirical evidence that the Atlantic Ocean exists, hence my reason for admitting that it was not a good analogy).
As for the Niobrara Sea: I am glad you brought that up, because this is in the same category as the Big Bang (and therefore is a better analogy). It's a putative historical sea whose existence is inferred, but not directly observed. The affirmation of the supposed erstwhile existence of this sea requires the presentation of evidence, as does the denial of its existence. There are implications to both positions. Therefore, the deniers cannot get a free ride in the debate concerning the existence of this natural system.
quote:
At any rate, no one believes in the Big Bang because it's a big important idea and therefore must be true. The Big Bang is believed because it has met the burden of proof.
Assuming that the Big Bang has actually met its burden of proof, then it follows, according to your reasoning, that the claim for the existence of God has also met its burden of proof. I say this, because the method of reasoning is exactly the same: inference rather than direct empirical evidence.
You cannot have it both ways!
The fact that some people may dispute the conclusion of God's existence reached from the process of inference, or may dispute the method itself, is irrelevant, because the same could be said of the inference that the Big Bang event actually occurred.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
True but not what is being talked about. What is being talked about is whether science describes reality
Actually what was being talked about was whether scientists think atoms exist despite what they might say or publish. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter at all. Most of them give about as much thought to philosophy of science as the average believer gives to the philosophy of religion - ie sweet FA. The degree to which facts are laden with theory maybe of passing interest, but as Karl said, the primary mode of science is pragmatism. As long as scientific claims remain provisional, if a scientist believes atoms exist as against believing the concept of atoms describe certain observed properties is neither here nor there. There will still be a big kaboom if conditions are right (or wrong, depending on where you are standing.)
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Sorry, but much of the argument here is ridiculous.
First to the OP, believers and disbelievers owe no explanation except where they are evangelizing.
Even then, they need only explain why they believe/disbelieve.
Attempting to ascribe a logic to beliefs is ignorant of the general process.
If one truly believes ones world view is the most reasonable, rational and logical, one would not teach it to their children. One would teach them none until they reached an age of sufficient understanding, or teach all points of view simultaneously and without preference.
BTW, the existence of the Niobrara Sea is not much of an inference.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
Is there, I wonder, a difference between needing to defend one's beliefs, and needing to explain them. We all have a view of life from which we rationalise our experiences. We describe random events as fair or unfair, ourselves as lucky or unlucky. It is, I think, one thing to have come to a view about the nature of life which makes to ourselves, and another to feel we must be able both to articulate it and defend it against objection.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Is there, I wonder, a difference between needing to defend one's beliefs, and needing to explain them. We all have a view of life from which we rationalise our experiences. We describe random events as fair or unfair, ourselves as lucky or unlucky. It is, I think, one thing to have come to a view about the nature of life which makes sense to ourselves, and another to feel we must be able both to articulate it and defend it against objection.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Assuming that the Big Bang has actually met its burden of proof, then it follows, according to your reasoning, that the claim for the existence of God has also met its burden of proof. I say this, because the method of reasoning is exactly the same: inference rather than direct empirical evidence.
Sure, and the same applies to the inference that Zeus causes lightning. That's an inference from the direct evidence as well.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
There's a fundamental difference between arguing for atheism against a monotheist and arguing for atheism against a polytheist.
Monotheists believe in only one God (let's not get into the Trinity here please). That there aren't other gods than the one monotheistic God is something that is more or less agreed between monotheists and atheists. (This, incidently, is why the Romans often called early Christians atheists). If The One God (whatever you want to call him/her/it) doesn't exist then you're left with none. Proof by exhaustion - with the monotheist having already eliminated almost all the cases.
On the other hand arguing with a polytheist is a whole different ball game. I can argue about Eostre until the cows come home - but that has no impact on the existance of Odin, Loki, Dionysius, Lugh, or anyone else except Eostre.
Of course this doesn't quite hold water - there are two cases of monotheist. The ones who are convinced monotheists and have ruled out other Gods, and the ones who are convinced theists and believe that the accurate form of theism is Christianity.
And it's unsurprising to see that the person railing against strawman "scientismists" is at the very least a believer in so-called intelligent design, and possibly an out-and-out creationist.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
And it's unsurprising to see that the person railing against strawman "scientismists" is at the very least a believer in so-called intelligent design, and possibly an out-and-out creationist.
You make it sound like the intelligent design of complex systems is a disease. It's ironic, considering that practical science - especially the science involved in inventions - is 'creationist', in the sense that intelligent beings create useful, complex and sophisticated objects. The other method (the one frequently touted as the most scientific) is never used in practical science (the kind of science that actually delivers results that change lives).
By the way... I am not ashamed to say that I certainly believe that God is the intelligent creator of life. Does that make me a believer in intelligent design. I hope so.
(BTW... I can't stand the word 'scientismist' and I wish the contributor who uses this word would think of something different. Why not "philosophical naturalist", which is definitely not a straw man term.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Indeed, if the philosophical claim is that science describes reality, one of the supporting arguments would surely be that the activity of science presupposes it.
This is definitely where we start entering into the area of "Scientism." So when Scientists start making philosophical claims, which is not their remit, it is not "scientific" but "scientismic."
I don't think you can draw the remit so tightly. People practicing in the sciences certainly have a right to comment upon the philosophical assumptions behind what they're doing. Scientism may be an assertion of an unlimited privilege of people speaking in the name of science to pronounce on other subject matters without right of reply; but rejecting that does not mean that philosophers have an unlimited privilege in the other direction.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
On the other hand arguing with a polytheist is a whole different ball game. I can argue about Eostre until the cows come home - but that has no impact on the existance of Odin, Loki, Dionysius, Lugh, or anyone else except Eostre.
No, you can't argue about Eostre. The existence or non-existence of her is a matter of contingent empirical fact. When it comes to Eostre the only way to find out whether she exists or not is to do some empirical research - historical, or scientific, or whatever. Nobody would think of trying to prove Eostre by reason alone. It would be like trying to deduce the existence of Genghis Khan.
Whereas people have tried to prove the existence of God by argument. And even if no such argument works, doing so isn't self-evidently silly.
An argument about whether YHWH is the same as Brahma can be eventually settled in principle by dialogue between Christians and Hindus. It is basically a matter of trying to reconcile two philosophical systems. An argument about whether the two Norse goddesses Freyja and Frigga are the same can't be settled merely by dialogue. It can only be settled in the same sorts of ways as, say, whether Lewis Carroll is the same as Charles Dodgson, or Edward Lear is the same as the Earl of Derby.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Assuming that the Big Bang has actually met its burden of proof, then it follows, according to your reasoning, that the claim for the existence of God has also met its burden of proof. I say this, because the method of reasoning is exactly the same: inference rather than direct empirical evidence.
Sure, and the same applies to the inference that Zeus causes lightning. That's an inference from the direct evidence as well.
It would only be a valid inference if the presuppositions by which the inference is made were also valid. This is the case with all instances of inferences, including, by the way, even direct empirical evidence, because, strictly speaking, we only come to a knowledge of physical objects by inference, because we need to bridge the epistemic gap between the neurological impulses in our brains and the objects in themselves.
Therefore (if logical consistency and integrity means anything at all) it is incumbent on everyone who infers anything about reality to justify their presuppositions. I cannot understand why certain inferences should be immune from this kind of assessment.
Concerning Zeus and lightning compared to God and creation: these two explanations sit in different categories, and therefore to conflate the two is a category error. An atheist once insinuated that my belief in God was akin to the belief that little invisible men drove the workings of my car (a similar idea to Zeus sending lightning bolts). I pointed out to him that the lack of little men under the bonnet did not imply that the car had assembled itself by natural processes alone. My car was intelligently designed by engineers and manufactured in an ordered and sophisticated factory (a similar idea to God creating the universe). It is precisely because my car was intelligently designed that it can run by itself without the need for little men under the bonnet to keep the mechanisms functioning. The two concepts (intelligent design, on the one hand, and magic, on the other) are mutually exclusive.
So it really amuses me when people equate the intelligent God with the magical Zeus. They really could not be more wrong!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Concerning Zeus and lightning compared to God and creation: these two explanations sit in different categories,
How?
BTW, love the dance number preceding this statement.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Therefore both sides have to present their case (ignoring the obvious fact that there is direct empirical evidence that the Atlantic Ocean exists, hence my reason for admitting that it was not a good analogy).
Why would you present a case that deliberately ignores facts?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for the Niobrara Sea: I am glad you brought that up, because this is in the same category as the Big Bang (and therefore is a better analogy). It's a putative historical sea whose existence is inferred, but not directly observed.
What about its present day existence? That was the actual question asked. If the fact that something has "implications" is proof that it exists, then the Niobrara must still exists because it would have just as many "implications" as the Atlantic.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Assuming that the Big Bang has actually met its burden of proof, then it follows, according to your reasoning, that the claim for the existence of God has also met its burden of proof. I say this, because the method of reasoning is exactly the same: inference rather than direct empirical evidence.
You cannot have it both ways!
And here we get to the root of your problem. Using the same method (using evidence to draw conclusions) does not guarantee you will always get the same result (my claim is verified).
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Concerning Zeus and lightning compared to God and creation: these two explanations sit in different categories, and therefore to conflate the two is a category error.
"The normal rules of evidence and argument don't apply to my favorite cases" is pretty much the definition of special pleading.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Or perhaps a better rephrasement would be: reality is much more than just physical reality.
Maybe it is, but (a) science isn't interested in that, and (b) we weren't talking about it.
My bad. I thought you were talking about the nature of reality.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Why would you present a case that deliberately ignores facts?
I never knew that 'poor analogy' was one of the definitions of the word 'case'!
quote:
If the fact that something has "implications" is proof that it exists, then the Niobrara must still exists because it would have just as many "implications" as the Atlantic.
But I never said that "the fact that something has 'implications' is proof that it exists". That is something that you have dreamt up, that you think I said. I was talking about burden of proof, not proof of existence. In fact, it is THE VERY OPPOSITE of what I have been saying, because I have been acknowledging that atheism has implications. That is the whole point of everything I have written on this thread! I certainly do not believe that atheism is true.
Could you please try to read my posts properly, instead of just jumping to conclusions as to what I have said. It seems to happen on every thread in which we have a discussion (it's annoying, but, in fact, it only serves to confirm and strengthen my own case, at least in my own mind. Other people can think for themselves.)
quote:
And here we get to the root of your problem. Using the same method (using evidence to draw conclusions) does not guarantee you will always get the same result (my claim is verified).
Exactly! It depends on the presuppositions which guide the method of inference. So we are in the area of epistemology, which is a 'positive' discussion, which involves 'burden of proof'. Which is what I have been saying all along. Certain atheists seem to think that when they infer from the evidence, they are somehow using a kind of default method which is outside the range of critical analysis. It seems evident from your posts, hence your bold assertion that your claim has been verified! And hence...
quote:
"The normal rules of evidence and argument don't apply to my favorite cases" is pretty much the definition of special pleading.
What do you mean by 'normal'? Funny you should talk about special pleading, while touting a certain method of verification as 'normal'!!
Is it 'normal' to assume that the most complex systems in the universe could not have been assembled with intelligent input? That sounds exceedingly abnormal to me.
As for the Zeus comment: you seem to have overlooked that I actually explained my position concerning the comparison between Zeus and the intelligent creator God. But you have ignored it, for some reason (let me guess...)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It would only be a valid inference if the presuppositions by which the inference is made were also valid.
I couldn't agree more. How sure are you that your presuppositions are valid?
quote:
Concerning Zeus and lightning compared to God and creation: these two explanations sit in different categories, and therefore to conflate the two is a category error.
No they're not. Whether you call it "Intelligent Design" or "Magic", you're still positing a God that creates by Divine Fiat.
The only difference between Zeus creating lightning and God creating life is that we now know how lightning is caused by purely natural means. To the Ancient Greeks they'd have been in very much the same category. You're staking your entire worldview on the presupposition that science has already discovered everything there is to know about molecular biology and organic chemistry.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
How sure are you that your presuppositions are valid?
Logic.
quote:
The only difference between Zeus creating lightning and God creating life is that we now know how lightning is caused by purely natural means. To the Ancient Greeks they'd have been in very much the same category. You're staking your entire worldview on the presupposition that science has already discovered everything there is to know about molecular biology and organic chemistry.
So you think that science is all about discovering non-intelligence as the basis of reality?
How does it do that? Please explain.
As for "staking my entire worldview..." - Errm, nope. I do not base my entire view of reality on the progress - or otherwise - of molecular biology and organic chemistry! Another very loud, brash and meaningless 'mind reading' pronouncement about the beliefs of a theist, that can only go down as wishful thinking.
Also you may like to explain what you mean by "purely natural means". Part of the inner workings of a very large machine may cause a certain effect, and it could be said of that effect that it was caused by "purely mechanical means". But that pays no attention to the factor or factors which keep the entire machine as a whole running. Of course, an intelligent machine operator is very different from a little fairy working the particular mechanism in question. Hence the vast difference between the operation of intelligence and magic. And that is why your point about Zeus is certainly a category error.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
How sure are you that your presuppositions are valid?
Logic.
That's not an answer to the question I asked.
quote:
quote:
The only difference between Zeus creating lightning and God creating life is that we now know how lightning is caused by purely natural means. To the Ancient Greeks they'd have been in very much the same category. You're staking your entire worldview on the presupposition that science has already discovered everything there is to know about molecular biology and organic chemistry.
So you think that science is all about discovering non-intelligence as the basis of reality?
Do I take it from your editing of my post that you agree that "Intelligent Design" and "Magic" are the same thing in as much as they both posit a God that creates by Divine Fiat?
My point about science was, of course, that in discovering how lightning is actually created it automatically proved that it's not caused by wrathful Gods. That doesn't mean the intention was to disprove the "wrathful Gods" conjecture.
quote:
As for "staking my entire worldview..." - Errm, nope. I do not base my entire view of reality on the progress - or otherwise - of molecular biology and organic chemistry! Another very loud, brash and meaningless 'mind reading' pronouncement about the beliefs of a theist, that can only go down as wishful thinking.
Your entire worldview seems to be premised on the notion that life cannot come into existence spontaneously, therefore God. All it would take to disprove that notion is one example of the spontaneous creation of life - if one little petri dish containing amino and nucleic acids gets hit by a big spark that causes those molecules to start reacting and replicating, the whole premise falls.
How confident are you that that will never happen?
quote:
Also you may like to explain what you mean by "purely natural means".
"Requiring no supernatural intervention". Or, to put it another way, "a miracle occurs" is not part of the process.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
