Stephen Jones wrote:
>Chris is here just setting up a special definition of science to protect his
>materialist-naturalist philosoiphy. There is no reason why science should
>not study the natural world to see if they reveal the *effect* of an
>Intelligent Designer.
He is using science in the sense of definition 3b in Webster's 3rd "such
knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : Natural
science." Fairies and gods are not part of the natural, physical world and
therefore are outside of science. Even scientists who believe in fairies and
gods don't consider those things to be part of science, but outside the
perview of science. Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist. You should keep
that in mind.
1. How would you guage the effect of an Intelligent Designer?
2. If you could guage the effect of an Intelligent Designer, what would it
get you? How would it affect the work of science?
>>CC>No, it's a scientific method requirement, because the scientific method is
>>not applicable to fairies or Gods. Metaphysical non-naturalism is a
>>PHILOSOPHICAL position, and it is basically not subject to scientific
>>method, that's all, except when it makes predictive claims about empirical
>>facts not yet empirically determined.
>
>Again this is just materialist philosophical dogmatism. There is no reason
>why the scientific method is not applicable to the work of an Intelligent
>Designer.
give me a example of applying the scientific method to the work of an
Intelligent Designer. You should also be aware that scientific philosophy
and science are not the same thing.
>The scientific method is applicable to the work of human
>intelligent designers (eg. archaeology, forensic science) and even alien
>intelligent designers (eg. SETI).
we know there are humans, because *we* are humans. We know there are other
life forms, because *we* are life forms. If there are gods among us (I
happen to know there are fairies among us, but they are not *that* kind of
fairies.) they are being mighty quiet.
>"Can There be a Scientific `Theory of
>Creation'?" in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis," 1994,
>pp100,102)
ROFL!!
>Not really. Christians believe the Bible is true, but that does not mean that
>they do not question what it means. The fact that there at least four
>possible interpretations of the above passage in Joshua demonstrates that.
I find it astonishing that this applies to every book of the bible except
Genesis.
>>CC>You mean, aside from the fact that it's unbelievably stupid?
>
>This is just materialist prejudice. If the Bible *is* God's message to man,
>then it is *wisdom* to believe it, and "unbelievably stupid" not to.
Indeed! but it remains to be proven that it *is* some god's message to man.
In fact it's not amenable to proof. It must be believed or not.
>>CC>No. The soundest approach is not to accept ANY of it initially that one
does
>>not already have good reason to believe, and then incrementally accept any
>>of the rest of it that stands up to criticism. THIS is in fact analogous to
>>what scientists do.
>
>This is just a myth. Scientists when they start studying science as students
>in school accept the whole corpus of science on faith. It is only many years
>later, if at all, that they subject it to criticism in any fundamental way. If
>scientists were to work from the bottom up, as Chris suggested, they
>probably would not even pass science subjects at school and so would
>never get to be scientists!
It *is* best not to have every generation re-invent the wheel. Howevewr,
scientists don't take what they see on faith for long. Some observations can
be repeated and some can't. The ones that can't are going to get talked
about. That's how Ph.D.s are born.
>The opposite principle of believing everything is false, until it is proved
true, like
>Hume tried to do, even the atheist Russell says is bankrupt:
You're a fan of Russell? Me too! :-)
>"however, Hume seems not to have drawn...In fact, in the later portions of the
>Treatise, Hume forgets all about his fundamental doubts, and writes much as
>any other enlightened moralist of his time might have written; he applies
to his
>doubts the remedy that he recommends, namely 'carelessness and inattention'.
>In a sense, his scepticism is insincere, since he cannot maintain it in
practice. It >has, however, this awkward consequence, that it paralyses
every effort to >prove one line of action better than another." (Russell
B., "History of Western
> Philosophy," 1993, pp645- 646)
you need to re-read this passage. I think Russell is not supporting your
point. I think he's castigating Hume for not being skeptical enough.
>"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who
>comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who
>earnestly seek him."
:-) that explains why the big tornado that swept through OKC last May jumped
over all the Christian churches.
Susan
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb