S
- Status
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
To the comment that Philosophy is not a science, I hearken back to Thomistic Philosophy courses I had in 1960-61. and 1961-62 in my junior and senior years of college. If I recall, it was the science of correct thinking. Do not make the elitist mistake in thinking that science has only to do with the physical sciences. Each of the Thomistic philosophy courses was defined as a science. These courses were, logic, epistemology, rational psychology, cosmology and metaphysics. These were taken so as to lay the framework for the study of theology.
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Re
One should note that most scientists have a Ph.D. degree - That stands for Doctor of Philosophy. All sciences are offshoots of the basic discipline of philosophy.
I
itinerant1
Guest
You make a good point here, but further analysis is needed. I think ID and Darwinists make some of the same types of errors. I will explain.
It is correct to say that there is metaphysical foundation to science. The first principles of knowledge such as the law of the excluded middle are the basis of human knowledge itself. Aristotle explained this timeless truth. We can look at other metaphysical truths that make science possible. For instance, the fact that every physical thing in nature is comprised of non-physical components, substantial form, makes knowledge possible. If philosophical materialism were true, then scientific knowledge, or any human knowledge would not be possible. It is immateriality that makes knowledge possible. A purely physical world, (an impossibility in itself), would be unknowable.
Furthermore, that kind of knowledge, which is specific to human beings, i.e. abstract concepts (universals), is spiritual. The human intellect is a spiritual power. It is the spiritual intellect or soul, which Aristotle showed to be “separate” or above nature, that makes science possible.
Still, it is not within the province of the natural sciences to investigate these metaphysical realities that make science possible. In this sense, the natural sciences are not even competent to explain themselves. That is the task of philosophy.
In addition to the metaphysical basis of science or human knowledge, there is a metaphysical view underlying every scientific statement. This is a statement that evolutionists on CAF failed to understand. Even though they din’t comprehend the statement, they were quite adamant that it must be wrong.
It is especially true that vast scientific hypotheses entail a metaphysical view of the universe. Huxley admitted that his hypothesis about life originating from non-living matter involved a philosophical faith.
Charles Darwin asserted as a certainty that the mind of man differs only in degree from that of higher animals. What is certain here is that Darwin was dead wrong. He thought his position was proved by scientific evidence. However, the evidence proved no such thing. His position remains unproven, despite the claims of modern scientists. Darwin’s position leaves no room for the human soul. Darwin became a philosophical materialist, and his theory of the nature and origin of the human mind is called “epiphenominalism”. This is where the scientist should take correction from the philosopher and the theologian. However, Darwin was not amenable to that kind of (name removed by moderator)ut.
Darwin’s position on the human mind is an absolute absurdity, yet there are Catholics on CAF that hold to Darwin’s position, or some similar neo-Darwinian position, while also believing in the existence the spiritual human soul. This is an intellectual schizophrenia, in which mutually contradicting positions are held to be simultaneously true.
When a Catholic believes the human mind originated in the natural processes of evolution, it is tantamount to denying that God created each human soul individually. This is where the Catholic scientist should take correction from the theologian, but some refuse to, and are bereft of the necessary background to think through these problems.
Age old problems do not go away just because one wants them to. There is a pressure for Catholic scientists to conform to the errors of neo-Darwinism. Their careers might not advance so smoothly if they exhibited some independent thought on certain matters.
The problem here is not with science or evolution, it is a problem with some, (or most?), scientists. Despite these kinds of problems, and they are very serious problems, biological evolution remains a genuine science. Evolution is grounded in a genuine truth.
When an evolutionist argues about I.D. involving philosophy, he must argue philosophically. There is no other choice. It is not much of a criticism to say he must argue philosophically, unless the evolutionist believes philosophical knowledge is not genuine knowledge. Some are of this cast of mind. However, the first principles of metaphysics are known with far more certainty than any scientific conclusion can be known.
Philosophy is necessary. Even Aristotle noted that to prove one does not need philosophy, he must argue philosophically.
I.D. does not utilize a scientific method, one proper to a natural science. I.D. takes a philosophical approach to investigating natural phenomena in regard to causality. This approach is integral to I.D. On the other hand, evolutionists will encroach on the domain of philosophy, such as denying final causes in nature, or interpret scientific data according to erroneous philosophical assumptions, such as Darwin’s epiphenominalisn, but these errors are not integral to biological evolution “in itself”. They remain dangerous and misleading errors that taint certain evolutionary theories. Darwin became a philosophical reductionist and materialist. Evolution is better articulated and understood without these errors.
It’s a sad commentary on modern society when most scientist are atheistic or agnostic. Materialistic evolution suits them well. We live in a very secularized culture. I think about 90% of mass media reporters are pro-abortion. The officially endorsed philosophy of the National Education Association is secular humanism. I.D. has all of these forces in society standing against it. As for myself, I cannot accept I.D. because of its philosophical methods and confusion.
The paragraph you typed came about by a plan and intentionality. The creator of the paragraph, yourself, exists in nature, and your creative activity can be naturally inferred, observed, or confirmed by a self-report. Natural phenomena reveal order and design, yet the ultimate source of this order and design is not nature itself, but God, who is super-natural or above nature. The natural scientist studies the natural, observable, and proximate causes of things in nature. He does not concern himself with the unseen, ultimate or higher causes of things in nature, which is the province of first philosophy or metaphysics.
The manner in which I.D. speaks of design in nature, is encroaching on the domain of metaphysics in regard to causality. Likewise, when we speak of your paragraph exhibiting design, there is an aspect of the subject that can be considered from the discipline of philosophy. This involves the nature of “intentionality” and a corresponding epistemological analysis. A mathematical description, though a very complex one, could be given in regard to your paragraph, yet the question of “intentionality” involve a higher degree of abstraction than is provided by mathematics. Likewise, I.D. goes beyond a mathematical analysis of things in nature. You would have to show that this is not the case, in other words, prove that I.D. involves no inferences that are higher in nature or the order of human knowledge than that provided by the science of mathematics.
N
Namesake
Guest
A PhD does not mean the holder is a philosopher unless the degree is actually in philosophy. A PhD in science is quite distinct as a research degree and has nothing to do with the discipline of philosophy.
To say that all sciences are offshoots of philosophy is wildly incorrect. PhDs do philosophize, but they are not in any way prepared to be professional philosophers any more than philosophers are prepared to be scientists.
Science addresses the natural, material universe. Think chemistry, physics, anatomy, geology, etc. That’s it! No moralizing! No search for a designer! The designer is in the province of the theologian or the philosopher. Science isn’t interested in a designer. Science is interested in chemistry, biology, physics, geology, etc. Hard core science and that’s all!
C
Chuck_H
Guest
My apologies, ignorant on how to a quote yet.
“Darwin’s position on the human mind is an absolute absurdity, yet there are Catholics on CAF that hold to Darwin’s position, or some similar neo-Darwinian position, while also believing in the existence the spiritual human soul. This is an intellectual schizophrenia, in which mutually contradicting positions are held to be simultaneously true.”
As erudite as that argument sounds, it is basically false.
It is well within the creation schema that God would create a universe that would result in a natural creature that possessed a brain finally capable of regarding itself. By His grace that creature is now endowed with a share of God’s being (soul) and the opportunity to be one with the Creator. To argue otherwise is to risk dualism and a inferred position that we are just souls inhabiting a natural state until called back.
It is notable that people who have undergone frontal lobotomies lose all of their creativity and capacity for imagination. While those human characteristics are lost it is doubtful that their soul has somehow been damaged at the same time.
Intelligent design is little more than weak arguments by Biblical literalists to defend against a perceived threat to the “unerring” biblical word. The arguments made by Behe and others are fashioned on belief and limited arguments rather then science. Further, this science that defeats them is the product of a philosopher that demanded visible and testable proof before an argument could be believed.
By J. B. Phillips measure, the god of the ID is too small. Kenneth Miller argues successfully that God initiated a universe that could act on its own and gave it free will to be what it could be. When we were ready, He shared his life. That God is large and robust and true.
“Darwin’s position on the human mind is an absolute absurdity, yet there are Catholics on CAF that hold to Darwin’s position, or some similar neo-Darwinian position, while also believing in the existence the spiritual human soul. This is an intellectual schizophrenia, in which mutually contradicting positions are held to be simultaneously true.”
As erudite as that argument sounds, it is basically false.
It is well within the creation schema that God would create a universe that would result in a natural creature that possessed a brain finally capable of regarding itself. By His grace that creature is now endowed with a share of God’s being (soul) and the opportunity to be one with the Creator. To argue otherwise is to risk dualism and a inferred position that we are just souls inhabiting a natural state until called back.
It is notable that people who have undergone frontal lobotomies lose all of their creativity and capacity for imagination. While those human characteristics are lost it is doubtful that their soul has somehow been damaged at the same time.
Intelligent design is little more than weak arguments by Biblical literalists to defend against a perceived threat to the “unerring” biblical word. The arguments made by Behe and others are fashioned on belief and limited arguments rather then science. Further, this science that defeats them is the product of a philosopher that demanded visible and testable proof before an argument could be believed.
By J. B. Phillips measure, the god of the ID is too small. Kenneth Miller argues successfully that God initiated a universe that could act on its own and gave it free will to be what it could be. When we were ready, He shared his life. That God is large and robust and true.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Namesake, you are correct in the sense that the sciences we know today are not offshoots of the philosophy we know today. Rather, they grew out of the philosophy known by Aristotle and the scholastics, a philosophy which did encompass everything. Philosophia naturalis evolved into phyiscs, astronomy, chemistry, etc., just as Historia naturalis evolved into biology, paleontology, geology, etc.
Petrus
D
drpmjhess
Guest
S
Stephen_LB
Guest
-------Itinerant: "Likewise, when we speak of your paragraph exhibiting design, there is an aspect of the subject that can be considered from the discipline of philosophy. This involves the nature of “intentionality” and a corresponding epistemological analysis. A mathematical description, though a very complex one, could be given in regard to your paragraph, yet the question of “intentionality” involve a higher degree of abstraction than is provided by mathematics. Likewise, I.D. goes beyond a mathematical analysis of things in nature. You would have to show that this is not the case, in other words, prove that I.D. involves no inferences that are higher in nature or the order of human knowledge than that provided by the science of mathematics.
We are back to the problem of arbitrarily and artificially ruling out a process because it leads to an undesirable conclusion. By your standard, all inferential science is philosophy. Consider how many other methodologies you would rule out on the grounds that, as you put it, they “involve the nature of intentionality."
The following methodologies represent our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design:
—How copyright and patent offices identify theft of intellectual property
—How insurance companies prevent themselves from getting ripped off
—How detectives employ circumstantial evidence to incriminate a guilty party
—How forensic scientists are able to reliably place individuals at the scene of a crime
—How scientists identify cases of data falsification
—How NASA’s SETI program seeks to identify the presence of extra-terrestrial life
—How statisticians and computer scientists distinguish random from non-random strings of digits
All of these processes are recognized as scientific in nature. Under the circumstance, you cannot credibly affirm, that ID, which follows the same logic, is not science… You could attribute “intentionality” to all of these methodologies, but it would not matter at all. The insurance companies, courts, patent offices, forensic scientists, and even archeologists would all reject your restrictions for the simple reason that they are not appropriate. That hard and fast line that you place between science and philosophy is, in the end, a science stopper.
We are back to the problem of arbitrarily and artificially ruling out a process because it leads to an undesirable conclusion. By your standard, all inferential science is philosophy. Consider how many other methodologies you would rule out on the grounds that, as you put it, they “involve the nature of intentionality."
The following methodologies represent our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design:
—How copyright and patent offices identify theft of intellectual property
—How insurance companies prevent themselves from getting ripped off
—How detectives employ circumstantial evidence to incriminate a guilty party
—How forensic scientists are able to reliably place individuals at the scene of a crime
—How scientists identify cases of data falsification
—How NASA’s SETI program seeks to identify the presence of extra-terrestrial life
—How statisticians and computer scientists distinguish random from non-random strings of digits
All of these processes are recognized as scientific in nature. Under the circumstance, you cannot credibly affirm, that ID, which follows the same logic, is not science… You could attribute “intentionality” to all of these methodologies, but it would not matter at all. The insurance companies, courts, patent offices, forensic scientists, and even archeologists would all reject your restrictions for the simple reason that they are not appropriate. That hard and fast line that you place between science and philosophy is, in the end, a science stopper.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Your statement, “a brain capable of regarding itself”, is vague and ambiguous. I suspect you subscribe to the modern mythology that says we think with our brains. Science has yet to prove that humans think with their brains. The correct formulation is that we do not think with our brains, but we cannot think without them. A relative integrity of the brain is required for thinking to occur. The brain constitutes a necessary but not a sufficient condition for thought. The nature of thought itself demonstrates this fact.
Either your wording is imprecise, or your understanding is incorrect.The human soul is not ontologically identical with God’s being. The human soul is created, finite, and remains a distinct entity from the essence and existence of the Creator.
Dualism refers to the relationship of the soul to the human body. You are apparently, mis-using the term, and in the context of your previous statement that the soul shares in God’s being, your theology borders on pantheism.
Plato was a dualist in that he believed the immortal soul was imprisoned in the body. Dualism, in a wider sense refers to any philosophical position that maintains the soul is a spiritual entity distinct from the human body, which is physical. Properly speaking, the human soul is an incomplete spiritual substance whose nature it is to be united to the body as its “form” and principle of life. When the body dies the soul continues to exist. As Catholics, we believe the body will be re-united with the soul in the Resurrection.
I
itinerant1
Guest
On the contrary, my process leads to the undersirable conclusion, for some, that I.D. is not a natural science.
I have said nothing that implies “all inferential science is philosophy”. Specifically, if an inference is meta-scientific then then we are dealing with philosophy, not science. I.D. confuses philosophy and science in the matter of design and causality. Hence, the remainder of your post has no relevance to my argument.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Itinerant, doesn’t a science begin with a testable hypothesis? What might such a hypothesis be if ID were a science?
M
mathematician
Guest
Nope, any self respecting scientist is in that position too, if he also happens to be a Christian. In the sense that all Christians are bound to believe that God created the universe, all Christians are creationists, but that is not how the word is generally used.
S
Stephen_LB
Guest
I have provided several examples of other disc(name removed by moderator)lines that apply the ID method of inference @247. You have not addressed that point. By you standard, none of these methods qualify as science. How are you going to overcome that problem? Are you saying that forensic science is not really science because it doesn’t meet your arbitrary standard? Are you suggesting that all of these discipines confuse philsophy and science because they involve “intentionality.”
S
Stephen_LB
Guest
ID is inconsistent with Biblical literalism. You are thinking of “creation science.” Creation science begins with faith in the Bible and attempts to harmonize science with that presupposition. Intelligent Design begins with an observation of data and makes an inference to the best explanation. The two are radically different.
Belief in a non-material mind is an important part of the Catholic religion. To believe in the existence of “brains” at the exclusion of “minds” is to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church. We are a composite of body, soul, and spirit. That means that we live in two worlds, materiala and spiritual.
I
itinerant1
Guest
You have completely misunderstood my point about “intentionality”. Writing a poem or typing a letter involves intentionality. However, I was not speaking of the existence of “intentionality” itself, but of a the philosophical analysis of intentionality such as one will find in works of epistemology. This is where you have gotten off-track on my meaning. Like a poem that reveals intentionality, and did not occur by chance or necessity, so the universe reveals a mind, even though some events are what we call chance and other are of necessity, according to laws of the created beings in the cosmos.
Following, this consideration, is the main point. The various kinds of human knowledge involve an abstraction from things in nature. The degree of abstraction characterizes the various sciences or disciplines. At the lowest level of abstraction are the natural sciences, next are the mathematical disciplines, and highest in the order of natural reason is metaphysics. Accordingly, my question to you is,
“Does I.D. involve as an integral part of its analysis of nature, a knowledge or inference the degree of abstraction which is of a higher order than that of mathematics?”
To the question above, I await your response.
So, my previous position still stands: your subsequent post(s) is not relevant to my intended meaning.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Nah! I never hear of a Kenneth Miller, but I can’t imagine anyone successfully arguing “that God initiated a universe that could act on its own and gave it free will to be what it could be.” Perhaps he argued with no opponents present and then declared himself the winner.
The universe operates according to the laws of the natures of created beings, but nothing acts on its own absolutely. Creation is sometimes viewed as a one-time event. On the contrary, God’s creative act continues at every instant by maintaining all things in existence.
Initiating the universe, as you call it, is narrowly viewed on a horizontal level, as something that happened in the distant past, which marked the beginning of time,and so on. However, one needs to also look at things in a vertical way, in which the divine creative act and providence continue to operate in an unceasing manner.
You have left no room for Divine Providence in creation. The old analogy of the universe being like a watch that the watchmaker created, wound up, and left ticking on its own is an unsupportable idea, even though whoever first thought of this idea probably believed it was a fairly nifty one. I doubt that God was as impressed by this idea as was its inventor.
You spoke of the universe as having “free-will”. However, only rational beings have free will; God, angels, men. Non-rational beings and inanimate beings do not have free will. If you meant the universe has “free-will” in a figurative sense, then this is false also, according to my explanation above about providence.
R
ricmat
Guest
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Itinerant1, I agree with you about creatio continua in addition to creatio ex nhilo. However, I’m not convinced by your rather stark line of demarcation between beings that have free will and beings that don’t. Not all humans are mentally competent enough to have free will (e.g., anancephalic babies), and some animals – including the higher primates – clearly do exercise free will above the level of some humans.
Petrus
S
Stephen_LB
Guest
You have not yet addressed the problem at 247. Explain why all the instances in 247 are not science. I have to assume, for example, that your position is that forensic science is not science since it uses the same method of ID. Inasmuch as everyone else agrees that it is science, the burden of proof is on you.
- Status