How to Answer Theist Arguments

Funny!

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Real Life,

Quote:
You may think I 'miss the point' but if I do, then 40-45% of scientists do too.

You are correct !...a good many scientists can't see the wood for the trees!
Polkinghorne identifies his "good guys" ...David Bohm and Fritjof Capra... both of whom engage with the scientific trends mentioned above yet allowing at least a reconciliation with "spirituality" if not "traditional theism".

So there you are...what more could you wish for ? Me, an atheist showing you how to dump your medieval myths and pointing you to where the theological action is !

Hi Fresco,

You are too kind. Smile

I've known a good many atheists who encouraged me to reject theism. Nothing new there.

Nor is it new that liberal churches and institutions become breeding grounds for atheism soon after they embrace relativism. Been going on for years.

'Spirituality' or 'spiritual action' is not the goal. There are many 'spiritual' folks who are polytheists. A vanilla interest in spirits is not what I'm interested in. Nor is a trendy interest in the latest spiritual fad the least bit attractive to me. Sorry.

I would be interested to your answer to my question about SETI.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You may think I 'miss the point' but if I do, then 40-45% of scientists do too. They don't agree that natural processes alone are sufficient to explain the complexity of living organisms as we know them today.

Tripe, poppycock, balderdash, and outright falsehood.[/u]

I am a strong believer in recycling.

0 Replies

Real Life,

Your SETI reference is a non sequitur unless of course you are implying that aliens have transmitted the DNA code :wink: . Similarly you seem to be a little confused about "spirituality" and "spiritualism". The first implies transcendence and dissipation of "the self" the second advocates persistence of "selves" in the form of disembodied egos whether they be "souls" or "deities". BTW, I spoke of "theological action" not "spiritual action" which is an oxymoron because the "actor" has dissipated. Perhaps I should instead have used the phrase "informed theological thinking" implyng that which seeks to embrace current "frontier science". Polkinghorne recognizes the success of the life-like "complexity" involved in Prigogine's work on "dissipative structures" to the extent that he (Polkinghorne) resorts to the terminology of "chaos theory" as used by Prigogine to speculate on the possible nature of "the deity".

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Would not the 'scientific' hypothesis be that the signals likely emanate from an intelligent living being(s) ?

Oh, you mean like Pulsars. Nope the scientific hypothesis changed over time as more info became available and there was not one singular hypothesis, even at first. It would appear you fail to understand science is not static.

Astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock writes that "when the first regular radio signals from pulsars were discovered, the Cambridge scientists seriously considered that they might have come from an extraterrestrial civilization".

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:
You may think I 'miss the point' but if I do, then 40-45% of scientists do too. They don't agree that natural processes alone are sufficient to explain the complexity of living organisms as we know them today.

Tripe, poppycock, balderdash, and outright falsehood.

Maybe you should read the polls you cite before you post them.

0 Replies

Real Life.

Here's a good Polkinghorne reference.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/polkrev.html

0 Replies

Polkinghorne claims that much of what we do in science is "the creative interpretation of experience, not rigorous deduction from it."

If so then our common experience is immensely predictable when it comes to the net result of the application of science via technology.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Does anyone else find it funny that 'freethinkers' must be taught what to say and how to think in a 'seminar for freethinkers'?

Yeh, that seems kind of ironic in a specious sort of way, but free thinking doesn't necessarily preclude lack of planning and cohesion.

I also find it ironic that creationists couch their ideas in scientific terms (ID) even though they reject the core assumption of science; methodological naturalism.

0 Replies

Chumly,

Could you flesh out that second paragraph a little.

0 Replies

If technology is the daughter of science how can it be that "that much of what we do in science is the creative interpretation of experience, not rigorous deduction from it"?

It would seem technology counters "the creative interpretation of experience" unless you are going to argue an SCR (silicon controlled rectifier) can be creatively interpreted in terms of its basic functionality.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I also find it ironic that creationists couch their ideas in scientific terms (ID) even though they reject the core assumption of science; methodological naturalism.

Some adhere to selective methodological naturalism! Come to think of it many (most?) people do, not just creationists.

0 Replies

Chumly,

I don't thnk Polkinhorne considers the implications of technology It is clear that technology is now inextricably linked with "frontier research" but the nature of the (family) relationship is far from clear.

I support the view that scientific hypotheses evolve from exploring analogies between systems via a common mathenatical model. (e.g. solar system and atomic structure). However no research is conducted in a social or political vacuum therefore paradigm shifts owe as much to funding considerations as they do to the "pure creativity" of scientists. Since research technology is expensive and indispensible, we seem to have the seeds of an "unholy alliance".

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
I also find it ironic that creationists couch their ideas in scientific terms (ID) even though they reject the core assumption of science; methodological naturalism.
Some adhere to selective methodological naturalism! Come to think of it many (most?) people do, not just creationists.

Methodological naturalism is the basic assumption which allows us to learn from our surroundings. Even those who do not appreciate it as a foundation of the scientific method, still use it on a daily basis even if they are unaware of what they are doing.

0 Replies

Excellent points from both fresco & rosborne979, much thanks! Both you are great to learn from.

0 Replies

Well said, Chumly. I find them both consistently provocative and informative.
BTW, doesn't "freethinking" mean, simply, "thinking"?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

BTW, doesn't "freethinking" mean, simply, "thinking"?

Now that gave me a chuckle! I also have much appreciation for your insightful posts.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

If technology is the daughter of science how can it be that "that much of what we do in science is the creative interpretation of experience, not rigorous deduction from it"?

It would seem technology counters "the creative interpretation of experience" unless you are going to argue an SCR (silicon controlled rectifier) can be creatively interpreted in terms of its basic functionality.

I do not think that technology is the daugher of science. I will not attempt to define technology here, but merely state that though technology relies on being scient, technology is not at all related to knowledge, whereas science (which is the opposite of ignorance) is mostly related to knowledge.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Chumly wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
I also find it ironic that creationists couch their ideas in scientific terms (ID) even though they reject the core assumption of science; methodological naturalism.
Some adhere to selective methodological naturalism! Come to think of it many (most?) people do, not just creationists.

Methodological naturalism is the basic assumption which allows us to learn from our surroundings. Even those who do not appreciate it as a foundation of the scientific method, still use it on a daily basis even if they are unaware of what they are doing.

One need not assume that all things have a natural cause to learn from our surroundings.

This assumption implies omniscience on the part of the one making it.

Why cannot science simply say, 'Science is that which uses natural means to explore the universe. Anything that cannot be determined to have a natural cause may not be discoverable by scientific inquiry.'

It doesn't mean you stop investigating at that point. It simply recognizes that there are limits beyond which natural means will not take you; thus you may not be able to prove that something has a natural cause or origin.

And you shouldn't say it does if you cannot prove it.

Assuming the answer is what you always accuse the religious of doing, yet you make the assumption that you know the answer (all things have a natural cause) , while admitting that it is unproven and unprovable.

So why can't you make your definition of science consistent with that admission?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Chumly wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
I also find it ironic that creationists couch their ideas in scientific terms (ID) even though they reject the core assumption of science; methodological naturalism.
Some adhere to selective methodological naturalism! Come to think of it many (most?) people do, not just creationists.

Methodological naturalism is the basic assumption which allows us to learn from our surroundings. Even those who do not appreciate it as a foundation of the scientific method, still use it on a daily basis even if they are unaware of what they are doing.

One need not assume that all things have a natural cause to learn from our surroundings.

Correct, which is why science doesn't do that.

You need to understand the difference between methodological naturalism and mataphysical naturalism.

Wiki wrote:

Many modern philosophers of science[1][2] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by similarly natural causes, and with irrelevance to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of supernatural elements, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside of science. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.

This distinction between approaches to the philosophy of naturalism is made by philosophers supporting science and evolution in the creation-evolution controversy to counter the tendency of some proponents of Creationism or intelligent design to refer to methodological naturalism as scientific materialism or as methodological materialism and conflate it with metaphysical naturalism to support their claim that modern science is atheistic. They contrast this with their preferred approach of a revived natural philosophy which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports "theistic science" or pseudoscience.

0 Replies

How to Answer Theist Arguments

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know