Re: [asa] Proof That Common Descent is NOT Begging the Question

PvM,

You are not addressing the manner in which your logic appears to be
advocating for scientism.

You claimed that your position

"When science cannot address something, we should at best be able to claim a
position of 'we don't know'"

is not scientism.

Yet you are clearly claiming that "we" are obliged to adopt a position of
agnosticism concerning any topic that science cannot address.

Your mistake is simple - When science cannot address something, the position
to adopt is that science does not know. Your leap from 'science' to 'we' is
what makes this look like scientism, as if only science has the ability to
move us away from agnosticism.

But we know this is not true. As I have noted, we now know that John
Edwards had an affair. Yet science did not deliver this knowledge. The
National Enquirer delivered it. Thus, according to your logic, we must
either deny that Edwards had an affair and adopt a position of agnosticism
on that issue or we must admit that the National Enquirer does science.

But it goes further than this. Since the existence of God is something that
cannot be addressed by science, you are saying that we should all be
agnostics. While it is true that science should be agnostic about the
existence of God ('When science cannot address something, the position to
adopt is that science does not know'), why think "we" must all adopt a 'we
don't know' position about God's existence?

-Mike

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 15 10:02:26 2008