On the Necessity of Proving Things

[anthony022071]

itinerant1,

Well, look at it this way: if you could prove your religion, it wouldn’t be a religion.

Religion does not depend on the supposed inability to prove its claims. On the contrary,religious claims must be justifiable by reason if they are to be worthy of belief. And rationality does not entail a naturalistic way of thinking,or testing by experiment.

 

[itinerant1]

That’s because they all go along with the naturalistic,mechanistic perspective. If you take that perspective,then it seems like nature can do anything that God is thought to do,given enough time,the right conditions,and through so-called “mechanisms”.

There is nothing whatsoever in the proper methods of the natural sciences that results in the attributing to nature of only that which God can do. One error and extreme deviation is the attitude of “scientism”, which “over-extends” scientific explanation due to errant philosophical pre-suppositions. However, you apparently object to what is generally reputed to be proper scientific method, that is, the observance of methodological naturalism. But, you still fail to present any convincing evidence for your “opinion”.

You appear to contend, in my words, that methodological naturalism necessarily leads to or entails philosophical naturalism. But when a scientist takes that position he merely conflates his ideology with his science. On the other hand, your complaint seems to be that methodological naturalism is an improper method for science, and that the natural sciences should incorporate super-natural explanations. Hence, science is no longer natural science, but some mixture of science and theology or philosophy. The fundamentalist creationist, Phillip E. Johnson, would agree with you. Johnson might like the idea of a theological biology, but do you know why that would be a disaster for the advancement of the science of biology? Is Johnson the one who has influenced your thinking?

Nonetheless, the natural sciences should remain within the scope and limit of explaining natural things by their proximate causes without bringing into the mix their ultimate or supra-natural cause(s), regardless of whether it is to affirm or deny existence of higher causation. To treat strictly of natural cause, amounts neither an affirmation or denial of higher causes.

If one wants to consider ultimate causes of natural events or proximate causes, then he must resort to philosophical analysis. Philosophical knowledge involves a different way of knowing things does natural science.

If you think I have misunderstood your opinion, go ahead and re-post your opinion with supporting evidence. For you to merely restate your conclusion in different ways, as you are won’t to do, hardly rises to a proof of your contention.

Accordingly, I patiently await your presentation of some kind of evidence and reasonable argument.

 

[Moonstruck888]

If the statement “truth is nothing more than an extention (sic) of human vanity” is reputed to be true, then the statement itself is nothing more than “than an extention (sic) of human vanity”, and as such, it is self-refuting, and deserves no creedence whatsoever.

You philosophers are all the same. You think that if you wrap things up in a nice little verbal package, no matter how ludicrous, baseless and devoid of any real meaning the verbal package is, that you’ve actually discovered some kind of meaning.

It’s pathetic. While scientists discover the world and engineers build the world, you lot sit around talking rot for thousands of years.

 

[itinerant1]

You philosophers are all the same. You think that if you wrap things up in a nice little verbal package, no matter how ludicrous, baseless and devoid of any real meaning the verbal package is, that you’ve actually discovered some kind of meaning.

It’s pathetic. While scientists discover the world and engineers build the world, you lot sit around talking rot for thousands of years.

To prove your contention you would have to make a philosophical argument, but I doubt that you are able to do that.

Futhermore, while practical science is useful, man does not live by bread, TV, and rockets alone.

Also, according to Neils Bohr, physics is not about the real world anyway.

 

[Moonstruck888]

To prove your contention you would have to make a philosophical argument, but I doubt that you are able to do that.

I sincerely hope that I can’t and never will be able to make idiotic, bombastic and meaningless hairsplitting false dichotomy ridden philosophical arguments, if you could even call them such.

Futhermore, while practical science is useful, man does not live by bread, TV, and rockets alone.

True. We need class one proteins and various vitamins and minerals, not to mention oxygen and water. Oh yes, and shelter.

Also, according to Neils Bohr, physics is not about the real world anyway.

Of course. The Bhor model is an analogue, not a true representation of the activities of sub atomic particles. It does, however, have very useful practical applications.

 

[itinerant1]

I sincerely hope that I can’t and never will be able to make idiotic, bombastic and meaningless hairsplitting false dichotomy ridden philosophical arguments, if you could even call them such.

I would hope for the same thing too, because none of that has anything to do with genuine philosophy.

True. We need class one proteins and various vitamins and minerals, not to mention oxygen and water. Oh yes, and shelter.

And most of all, those things that are absolutely essential because they are above being useful.

Of course. The Bhor model is an analogue, not a true representation of the activities of sub atomic particles. It does, however, have very useful practical applications.

Bohr was hardly talking about the utility of atomic models and their relation to the world. Apparently, you are completely unfamiliar with the Copenhagen school’s philosophical interpretation of quantum events.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I would hope for the same thing too, because none of that has anything to do with genuine philosophy.

I’m glad to hear it. Perhaps you could spread the word to some other philosophers and start taking your own advice to heart yourself?

Bohr was hardly talking about the utility of atomic models and their relation to the world. Apparently, you are completely unfamiliar with the Copenhagen school’s philosophical interpretation of quantum events.

I was referring to what Bhor is most famous for, which is the Bhor model. You didn’t imagine that it was called the “Bhor” model by conicidence did you?

As for the Copenhagen School’s interpretation of quantum events, I believe it’s in my office somewhere filed under B for bunkum.

Three phase space dimensions for every particle in the Universe. Particles that switch to being waves when you stop watching them. Far too much metaphysical baggage for my liking.

Quantum Theory is excellent for making predictions that can be used to build brilliant technologies, including the computer processors we’re using to communicate at the moment, but in explaining reality it’s worse than useless.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Hopefully, the following items will cover some of the reponses directed at me from my previous postings that were on another page. Thank you.

1. “God is Spiritus Creator, he is Logos, he is reason. And this is why our faith is something that has to do with reason, can be passed on through reason and has no cause to hide from reason, not even from the reason of our age. But precisely this eternal, immeasurable reason is not merely a mathematics of the universe and far less, some first cause that withdrew after producing the Big Bang.” (CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING OF THE HOLY FATHER WITH THE BISHOPS OF SWITZERLAND, ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI, November 9 2006) vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061109_concl-swiss-bishops_en.html
2. “Above all, St Albert shows that there is no opposition between faith and science, despite certain episodes of misunderstanding that have been recorded in history. A man of faith and prayer, as was St Albert the Great, can serenely foster the study of the natural sciences and progress in knowledge of the micro- and macrocosm, discovering the laws proper to the subject, since all this contributes to fostering thirst for and love of God. The Bible speaks to us of creation as of the first language through which God who is supreme intelligence, who is the Logos reveals to us something of himself. The Book of Wisdom, for example, says that the phenomena of nature, endowed with greatness and beauty, is like the works of an artist through which, by analogy, we may know the Author of creation (cf. Wis 13: 5). With a classical similitude in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance one can compare the natural world to a book written by God that we read according to the different approaches of the sciences (cf. Address to the participants in the Plenary Meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 31 October 2008; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 5 November 2008, p. 6). How many scientists, in fact, in the wake of St Albert the Great, have carried on their research inspired by wonder at and gratitude for a world which, to their eyes as scholars and believers, appeared and appears as the good work of a wise and loving Creator! Scientific study is then transformed into a hymn of praise. Enrico Medi, a great astrophysicist of our time, whose cause of beatification has been introduced, wrote: “O you mysterious galaxies… I see you, I calculate you, I understand you, I study you and I discover you, I penetrate you and I gather you. From you I take light and make it knowledge, I take movement and make it wisdom, I take sparkling colours and make them poetry; I take you stars in my hands and, trembling in the oneness of my being, I raise you above yourselves and offer you in prayer to the Creator, that through me alone you stars can worship” (Le Opere. Inno alla creazione). St Albert the Great reminds us that there is friendship between science and faith and that through their vocation to the study of nature, scientists can take an authentic and fascinating path of holiness. ” (BENEDICT XVI, GENERAL AUDIENCE, June 16, 2010)
   vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20100324_en.html.
3. “Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth … However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the ``why’’ questions than anyone else.” (Jonathan Keohane, Astrophysicist)
   imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html
4. From NASA:
5. I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion?
   According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
   “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. . .”

The National Academy of Sciences also says:
“Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science’s realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.”

“Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.”

“Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed ‘theistic evolution,’ is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.”
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

1. “Today, we can see as far as nature currently allows - back to the moment of the Big Bang itself.” cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm

 

[itinerant1]

To “LogisticsBranch”:

That was a good page of quotes. However, I do not know why you believe your quotes constitute a response to the problems previously noted regarding Hawking, and those scientists who wrongly believe that methodological naturalism necessarily entails philosophical naturalism.

Perhaps you can explain just what it is in your quotes that you think addresses the issues I have raised.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

To “itinerant1”:

Thank you. I am glad you liked the quotes. I was presenting my contributions to everyone! Obviously, you don’t think my contributions are worthy enough to satisfy you. Therefore, it is you that sees a problem not I. I don’t have to walk your line of thought to appease you if I find it unappealing. Science isn’t philosophy by the way.

Hints:

1. You should take the time to read the entire page of those links that I have noted above and throughout the discussion of this topic. You have shifted your entire discourse now on the person known as Stephen Hawkings. You seem to be implying that Stephen Hawking isn’t worthy to be on the Pope’s Scientific Advisory Committee because of a book? I have earlier presented to you with links and my thoughts about him. Is it your contention to publically denounce Hawking and oust him from the Vatican?
2. Regarding your link to a news article about the book The Grand Design (2010) by LEONARD MLODINOW and co-authored with Stephen Hawking. I can’t say too much about the link since I have yet to read the book. I have read quite a few articles and visited more than a few websites in an attempt to learn more about the book. There appears to be conflicting views. Sometimes, media hype of misinformation often seems to prevade in each article I read. I am in no way trying to agree or disagree. Rather, I would like to remain neutral.
3. According to Leonard Mlodinow’s website, he states, "In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a “model-dependent” theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse - the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete “theory of everything.”
4. I really have to think about what Mlodinow wrote. I can only guess since I haven’t read the book. All I can do is wonder if they are attempting to: M-Theory=(multiverse= black holes in the middle of galaxies within are universe. (We have observed black holes.) = Multiverses tied into the concept of Membrane (Branes) theory. In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified. However, “String theory elegantly explains fundamental particles as different vibrations of infinitesimal strings, and in doing so solves many lingering problems of modern physics. But string theory is highly controversial, in part because most of its predictions are virtually impossible to verify with experiments. If it’s not testable, it’s not science.” (The Equivalence Principle)
   science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/18may_equivalenceprinciple/
5. Remember earlier on I posted this and other stuff: This is the definintion of “Theory” from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration): “A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.”
   map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html#Theory
6. My opinion at this point is that what has been termed theory by NASA isn’t quite the same as some of the theories as mentioned. So, I have to read the book before I can comment further. itinerant1, have you read Hawking and Mlodinow’s book,The Grand Design?
7. What about answering Moonstruck questions? Why are you singling me out? Oh, is it because I’m a woman? To be honest, men have been telling me how to think since I showed up here. Warning: That isn’t a good idea. God is love! God is fair.

Best wishes to everyone. I’m ready for Autumn’s blaze of color. Think about it itinerant1.
Grateful hearts rejoice!

 

[itinerant1]

To “itinerant1”:

Thank you. I am glad you liked the quotes. I was presenting my contributions to everyone! Obviously, you don’t think my contributions are worthy enough to satisfy you. Therefore, it is you that sees a problem not I. I don’t have to walk your line of thought to appease you if I find it unappealing. Science isn’t philosophy by the way.

I see you are having difficulty being relevant to the thread topic, as well as having difficulty understanding my posts.

Your last post was made with the notation “Hopefully, the following items will cover some of the reponses directed at me from my previous postings that were on another page”. Now you change to say you “were presenting” your “contributions to everyone!” Which is it?

Next, you post a bizarre comment: “I don’t have to walk your line of thought to appease you”. It’s anyone’s guess what that is all about. Since you showed that you have no idea what my line of thought is, your comment is purely gratuitous. And you want to tell me science isn’t philosophy. :doh2: Duh! To what post is that news flash directed? The answer is, (drumroll), that it is not relevant to any of my posts. :dts:

Hints:

1. You should take the time to read the entire page of those links that I have noted above and throughout the discussion of this topic. You have shifted your entire discourse now on the person known as Stephen Hawkings. You seem to be implying that Stephen Hawking isn’t worthy to be on the Pope’s Scientific Advisory Committee because of a book? I have earlier presented to you with links and my thoughts about him. Is it your contention to publically denounce Hawking and oust him from the Vatican?

I never said anything to imply that Stephen Hawking isn’t worthy to be on the Pope’s Scientific Advisory Committee because of a book. Your comment is not relevant to the subject I was raising about the problems with Hawking particular cosmological theory. I see now that you may be in a thread dealing with topics you know too little about.

1. Regarding your link to a news article about the book The Grand Design (2010) by LEONARD MLODINOW and co-authored with Stephen Hawking. I can’t say too much about the link since I have yet to read the book. I have read quite a few articles and visited more than a few websites in an attempt to learn more about the book. There appears to be conflicting views. Sometimes, media hype of misinformation often seems to prevade in each article I read. I am in no way trying to agree or disagree. Rather, I would like to remain neutral.

Another irrelevant and erroneous comment. I never posted any such link as you claim.

What about answering Moonstruck questions? Why are you singling me out? Oh, is it because I’m a woman? To be honest, men have been telling me how to think since I showed up here. Warning: That isn’t a good idea. God is love! God is fair.

Good grief!! :hypno:

I am not singling you out. I was pointing out that what you were posting as responses were not actually relevant responses. You know, that’s what we do in a forum is discuss. And posts ought to have some relevance to what they pretend to be responding to.

You tell me you are a woman. :curtsey: That’s good to know since I thought you were a guy. And how is that relevant to the thread topic??

I’m not trying to tell you how to think as you so imagine. I was trying to get an intelligent conversation going regarding the extension of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM to cosmological theory by Hawking. :coffeeread:

And I did reply to Moonstruck, as much as I think he (or she?) wanted to hear, and then some.

Since I have no clue why you are saying all of this stuff, :whacky: I think that from now on we should just ignore each other’s posts on CAF. That way we can co-exist harmoniously here in cyber-space.

All the best!

 

[LogisticsBranch]

LogisticsBranch;7040029:

To “itinerant1”:
2. Regarding your link to a news article about the book The Grand Design (2010) by LEONARD MLODINOW and co-authored with Stephen Hawking. I can’t say too much about the link since I have yet to read the book. I have read quite a few articles and visited more than a few websites in an attempt to learn more about the book. There appears to be conflicting views. Sometimes, media hype of misinformation often seems to prevade in each article I read. I am in no way trying to agree or disagree. Rather, I would like to remain neutral.

Another irrelevant and erroneous comment. I never posted any such link as you claim.

Yes you did, itinerant1.

Msg. 945:

"The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed.

"In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” "

That which is noted above that you presented, “*The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed. *” when clicked with my mouse does take the reader to telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

Bye the way, I won’t be ignoring YOU! I’m not a rude person. And, this comment of yours is absolutely unchristian, ignorant, and tells me you are inconsiderate, “Since I have no clue why you are saying all of this stuff, I think that from now on we should just ignore each other’s posts on CAF. That way we can co-exist harmoniously here in cyber-space. All the best!”

You tell me you are a woman. :curtsey: That’s good to know since I thought you were a guy. And how is that relevant to the thread topic??:

It just proves my point as I earlier stated.

I’m not trying to tell you how to think as you so imagine. I was trying to get an intelligent conversation going regarding the extension of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM to cosmological theory by Hawking. :coffeeread:

You were the one that earlier on stated there are Big Bang Theories, which I had to correct you on. Now you are pulling something new out of the hat.

And I did reply to Moonstruck, as much as I think he (or she?) wanted to hear, and then some.

You missed a few on the previous page #960.

If anyone reads all the posts I’ve contributed throughout “On the Necessity of Proving Things” then they would know the truth.

 

[itinerant1]

Yes you did, itinerant1.

Msg. 945:

That which is noted above that you presented, “*The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed. *” when clicked with my mouse does take the reader to telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

You are right! I forgot that I ended up staying with that link after all. Not a bad link, though. It illustrates my point about differences in cosmological theories. I should now congratulate myself for the good link, rather than mistakenly say that did not post it.

Bye the way, I won’t be ignoring YOU! I’m not a rude person. And, this comment of yours is absolutely unchristian, ignorant, and tells me you are inconsiderate,

Hmm! That was a charitable response.

It just proves my point as I earlier stated.

As long as you are satisfied that you have proven your point, I guess is all that matters.

You were the one that earlier on stated there are Big Bang Theories, which I had to correct you on. Now you are pulling something new out of the hat.

Nada. Nothing new! Same position about variations in BBt, though the variations exists more on the level of hypothetical variations within the theory itself, which is why I posted some questions in post # 937

You missed a few on the previous page #960.

It may appear to you as if they were missed, but all is not as it seems on the bare surface of things.

If anyone reads all the posts I’ve contributed throughout “On the Necessity of Proving Things” then they would know the truth.

Really?

 

[sinnerdexter]

The concept of scientific proof is relative to the historical era is apt, and especially so in the case of the opposition between Einstein and Newton, since the advance of relativity theory over classical mechanics really derives from the evolution of the concept of proof from the Baconian-Cartesian paradigm, which was still operative in Newton’s day, to the positivistic theory which predominated in Einstein’s time. Newton’s error was to assume that he could encase all of physics within an absolute space-time metric, which amounted to treating Descartes’ coordinate system as though it were a real thing. But the inconsistency in Newton’s thinking was that he treated his space-time framework as something which had measurable effects on things inside it, but which could not be affected, in turn, by whatever was operating within it. He was thus positing a real, physical framework which could not itself be subjected to measurable physical effects, and that violates the fundamental rule of positivism, which is that nothing can be posited in scientific explanation as real unless a physical operation can be specified for measuring it.

It was Einstein’s development of this positivist insight, developed by philosophers working before him, such as Ernst Mach, which allowed him to realize that physical reality was conditioned by how it could be measured, specifically, by how fast light signals could register effects, and this was an idea that would never have occurred to Newton in the intellectual historical world of his time, when an absolute physical framework could simply be posited without worrying about what positive operations could independently measure it.

 

[anthony022071]

There is nothing whatsoever in the proper methods of the natural sciences that results in the attributing to nature of only that which God can do.

Right. I was referring not to scientific methods,but to the naturalistic perspective of science,or methodological naturalism. That is what causes scientists to attribute to natural causes what only God can do: the ability to create life,order,thought,and physical existence.

One error and extreme deviation is the attitude of “scientism”, which “over-extends” scientific explanation due to errant philosophical pre-suppositions. However, you apparently object to what is generally reputed to be proper scientific method, that is, the observance of methodological naturalism. But, you still fail to present any convincing evidence for your “opinion”.

MN is not a method,it is a view of nature that determines how natural phenomena are explained. Naturalism is an unjustifiable view of reality,and it does not become justifiable when it used in science as if it were true.

You appear to contend, in my words, that methodological naturalism necessarily leads to or entails philosophical naturalism.

I’m not talking about philosophy,I’m talking about the way in which science explains nature,which is naturalistic. Scientific explanations become doctrines. To explain how life originates as if only natural causes were involved is just as bad as saying outright that only natural causes exist. It is a roundabout approach to the same belief.

But when a scientist takes that position he merely conflates his ideology with his science. On the other hand, your complaint seems to be that methodological naturalism is an improper method for science, and that the natural sciences should incorporate super-natural explanations. Hence, science is no longer natural science, but some mixture of science and theology or philosophy. The fundamentalist creationist, Phillip E. Johnson, would agree with you. Johnson might like the idea of a theological biology, but do you know why that would be a disaster for the advancement of the science of biology? Is Johnson the one who has influenced your thinking?

My complaint is not that MN is an inappropriate method,but that it is a false,unjustifiable view of nature. Philip Johnson is not a fundamentalist,he is a Catholic. I only read his books after I had already come to my own conclusions.

Nonetheless, the natural sciences should remain within the scope and limit of explaining natural things by their proximate causes without bringing into the mix their ultimate or supra-natural cause(s), regardless of whether it is to affirm or deny existence of higher causation. To treat strictly of natural cause, amounts neither an affirmation or denial of higher causes.

If the power of God is ignored in accounts for the origination of the universe,and order,and life,and human thought,then that is a denial of the power of God. It is denial by disallowal.

 

[itinerant1]

Right. I was referring not to scientific methods,but to the naturalistic perspective of science,or methodological naturalism. That is what causes scientists to attribute to natural causes what only God can do: the ability to create life,order,thought,and physical existence.

You are still conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

 

[itinerant1]

Philip Johnson is not a fundamentalist,he is a Catholic. I only read his books after I had already come to my own conclusions.

When did Philip Johnson supposedly convert to Catholicism?

Also, there are fundamentalist Catholics. So, your distinction does not address anything.

 

[anthony022071]

You are still conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

I’m not talking about philosophy here,I’m talking about a mere perspective – assuming or pretending that only natural causes exist – that determines the way scientists give their professional accounts for all phenomena. A perspective does not amount to philosophy.

 

[itinerant1]

I’m not talking about philosophy here,I’m talking about a mere perspective – assuming or pretending that only natural causes exist – that determines the way scientists give their professional accounts for all phenomena. A perspective does not amount to philosophy.

I don’t see that you would recognize when you are talking about philosophy and when you are not. If you have been influenced by Philip Johnson or ID theorists, the distinction between philosophy and science would not necessarily be clear to you, since it is not clear to them.

Let’ stick with your earlier statement as an example of your postion: You said, “I was referring not to scientific methods,but to the naturalistic perspective of science,or methodological naturalism. That is what causes scientists to attribute to natural causes what only God can do: the ability to create life,order,thought,and physical existence.”

First, you imply that (modern) scientific methods and methodological naturalism are different. That is false. Nor have you attempted to present any proof for your assertion. Consequently, your statement cannot be accepted.

Second, you used “naturalistic perspective” in a manner that is ambiguous. Do you know what “ambiguity” means? If so, then you will realize your logical error in equating “naturalistic perspective” with “methodological naturalism”. The equation can only be properly discussed when the ambiguity is removed through additional stipulation.

Third, science, when its observes methodological naturalism does not attribute to natural causes such things as thought or physical existence. A scientist who additionally adheres to a “philosophical naturalism” will assume natural causes can account for “thought” or the coming into existence from nothing of natural things, but that is at bottom, a philosophical error, which goes nowhere in science, and never will. Show me a scientific experiment or study that “demonstrates” a natural cause for human conceptual thinking or creation from nothing.

Fourth, in regard to the creation of life, there is nothing known scientifically, philosophically, or theologically that says abiogenesis is an impossibility. Theoretically, natural causes can produce life because matter already contains all of the specificity required to generate life abiogentically. Whether abiogenesis actually occurred, remains an open question.

In sum, there are so many errors intertwined in just your two sentences quoted above, I do not know if you can ever extricate yourself. I think you may be forever locked in. For example, you are still beating the same “strawman” with your misrepresentation of just what “methodological naturalism” entails. You have given the term an erroneous meaning. Also, this same error simultaneously shows that you do not know much of anything about scientific methods.

How many ways can I explain this? Your argument involves not only the logical fallacy of “strawman”, but also the fallacy of petitio principii (question begging). You continually misdefine “methodological naturalism” according to what you think it means, and then you try to show what it wrong with methodological naturalism. Your reasoning is circular and hence proves nothing. But that has been your choice to “repeatedly” present a fallacious argument, one that proves nothing whatsoever. :juggle:

 

[anthony022071]

When did Philip Johnson supposedly convert to Catholicism?

Sorry,I got him mixed up with Kenneth Miller. Philip Johnson does not come across as a fundamentalist in his writings and interviews. He likes the post-modern perspective.

Also, there are fundamentalist Catholics. So, your distinction does not address anything.

The word “fundamentalist” usually refers to someone who believes in certain Protestant doctrines. If you take it to mean someone who believes that created the world in six days,and that all species are created directly by God,it does not mean that.