We Should Only Accept What Science Tells Us.

That's what I think. Since science tells us prayer doesn't work then it doesn't work. It tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old. It tells us we evolved. It tells us there was no Israelite Exodus from Egypt. It tells us the Nativity stories in the Gospels could not be true. It tells us virgins do not have babies. It tells us that dead people do not bodily rise from the grave. Christians must denigrate science in order to believe. Science or Faith? Science has a track record. Faith flies planes into buildings. Science all the way, hands down. End of story.

129 comments:

Tristan Vick said...

I've never seen a flying building... but I have seen a housefly. :p

Anonymous said...

Oops. Got it. ;-)

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

I don't have a problem with the premise of science being the exmaination of creation but let's be honest - scientists are human and draw erroneous conclusions from their studies. It was once believed that breast cancer risk could only be estimated from the mother's genetic pool but that is no longer considered accurate. It was once believed that chemicals, poisonous sprays and x-rays could be used without regard to consequences -- these are just a couple examples that I can personally testify to being erroneous. The process of developing responsible scientific conclusion is an ongoing one, but there is grace for growth and maturation in the area of science.

In the end, whether one rejects or accepts science as 'god' - this has no bearing on one's need for grace and one's stance regarding science does not disqualify them from this basic human need.

3M

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

HI John,

So what you are saying is that these things you disbelieve in.

Black-holes
Yesterday
Tomorrow
Love
Any Historical Person
etc, etc,

Oh and you should not accept me, until science confirms it.

Phil.

shane said...

our need for grace is only told to us by the Bible.
The Bible tells us that we are sick with sin, and then proclaims the cure at the same time.
The question is "do we really need grace from a higher being"?

Looking at the Biblical account of God, i dont think any human being should be seeking forgiveness from a God who has committed the atrocities in that Bible, aswell as eternal damnation for not kneeling before Him!-how childish!

And yes, science is not perfect and needs continuous overview, but science has proved Biblical truths to actually be false!
I think that is what John is getting at-science has done more things for our society then faith ever could!

shane said...

Reverend Phillip Brown.

Scientifically you have already been proven!
You posted a visual comment, people know you, you have family, you were documented by someone when you were born...etc...etc..

There is evidence of your existence easily accessible, aswell as many people already know you exist!

Can this be said of the Biblical God?

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Shane,

You wrote, "Looking at the Biblical account of God, i dont think any human being should be seeking forgiveness from a God who has committed the atrocities in that Bible, aswell as eternal damnation for not kneeling before Him!-how childish!"

It's true, that most people do have more of a relationship with their Bible than a connection with God. However, it wasn't until I knelt down before Him, guilty and wretched, that I learned how different and kind He is - a far cry from how most people treat those who are vulnerable!

I've written here before about OT folks so I won't be redundant, but I do not judge those who acted within the scope of their limited understanding and insight of the divine. Remember, they did not yet have Messiah so I do not judge and neither did Jesus. He did however, challenge the Torah and Moses' writings face to face with the religious elite who were infected with moral conceit - a very courageous thing to do and a reminder to avoid cooperating with religious dogma.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Dear Shane,

all of your comments could be put down to assumptions not science.

Nice try,

Phil.

shane said...

Also, yesterday's dont exist anymore once you get to today, but we know it existed because we were there.

Tomorrow doesn't exist until you get there.

Historical people? i dont think the major doubt is whether or not Jesus existed as a real person or anyone else in the Bible-John said that science has proven that the miracles that defy natural law do not happen!

Anonymous said...

You all are complaining about the limits of science over the internet. Do you complain about human fallibility when you are flying to see your grandmother, or driving to work? Are you going to be waxing philosophically about the limits of science when you cook your dinner tonight? Or sit down to watch your favorite sitcom? Do you damn science for it's flaws when it's cold outside & you turn on your heater? If you are so skeptical of science, go DO SOME. Become a scientist, get expertise in something your interested in, make a difference. Go & try to prove creationism, prove your religious doctrine, SOMETHING! If your not willing to do that, LET THE PEOPLE WHO ARE, DO THEIR JOB. To accept science when it comes to your food but reject it when it comes to things like 'the soul' is the height of hipocrisy.

shane said...

Reverend Phillip Brown.

You are right that they could be listed as assumptions, but so is God then.

At least you are writting something here that one of my 5 senses is telling me is real!

Unknown said...

Rev. Phil: "Oh and you should not accept me, until science confirms it."

I think you should try harder to understand how science works. Among other things, science doesn't prove things, it disproves them. We know (never definitively, but to a high degree of probability) things scientifically based on hypotheses that scientists have failed to disprove. For instance, we know that germs cause disease, because that hypothesis has proven so extraordinarily hard to disprove.

It's also something of a strawman to point out the philosophical underpinnings of science as if they were a deficiency in the epistemology. The philosophical underpinnings (that we exist, that there is an exterior world, etc.) of science are axiomatic, and the products of science are useful. Do you wish it were otherwise?

shane said...

Manifesting Mini Me.

I thought the OT was also inspired by God, not just the NT.

Mark Plus said...

@ shane:

our need for grace is only told to us by the Bible. The Bible tells us that we are sick with sin, and then proclaims the cure at the same time. The question is "do we really need grace from a higher being"?

A deity doesn't necessarily have to solve the problems theists want to credit it with. A god could, without logical contradiction, have created human life without any meaning or purpose at all.

shane said...

Mark Plus.

If there is a creator then what you said here would not be true, becuase of the chain of cause and effect.
Have you ever made something for no reason at all?

Dont get me wrong, i dont believe in the Biblical God, but im agnostic to the possibility of a creating force whatever it may be.

Unknown said...

Shane: :You are right that they [evidences of Rev. Phil's existence] could be listed as assumptions, but so is God then."

I don't think this is correct. Evidence of Rev. Phil (basically, his writing here) is not an assumption, but is based on the bare minimum scientific assumptions (axioms), such as that you exist and there is an outside world. But Rev. Phil's existence is not an assumption, and neither is the evidence of his existence. Encountering evidence of Phil's existence, we can infer that he exists.

This is fundamentally different from our knowledge of God, which defies evidence (the God Hypothesis fails in all the ways that the Rev. Phil hypothesis will presumably not), and which is why Christian apologists today work so hard to declare God among the axioms of science; if we want our believe in God's existence to be given the imprimatur of rationality, the only place he seems to fit is the backdoor of axioms. (The problem there is that he fails under Occam's razor, too. But at least that gambit buys time in the discussion.)

shane said...

Tony.
Thanks, i guess i was right the first time...lol

Exploring the Unknowable said...

---

Rev. Phil Brown is ridiculous. He retreats to the limits of epistemology as a way of saying, "We can't know anything for sure, so it's just as reasonable to believe in God as it is to believe in your family and friends [insert any other tangible things in our world]!!

I wonder what would happen if prosecutors used this reasoning at the end of a trial. "You know, all the evidence really seems to point to Ted Bundy being the murderer of over 30 people, but we just can never be absolutely sure...we can't convict him!"

How would your little word games work then, Reverend?

Of course science has been wrong about things, and it will continue to be wrong about things, but at least it is always willing to admit its shortcoming in the light of new evidence. Religion, on the other hand, only admits its failures after it has been disabused of its authority, and is trying to save face (see; The Catholic Church). But, without science, we would, by default, be pretty much dead wrong about everything. Science has unlocked some of the greatest mysteries of our lives and our world, and it will continue to make great strides into making our lives better.

Christians love to bemoan science, all the while enjoying the benefits it affords them every single day, and never once notice the hypocrisy they are spouting. It's mind-boggling!

For example, I wonder how many YECs who take prescription medicine realize how integral evolutionary theory is to the creation of the drugs they are taking which are making their lives more comfortable, and quite possibly saving their lives?

Just blows your mind...

Chuck said...

The internal fail-safe in science is skepticism. The internal fail-safe in religion is obedience.

I prefer the former.

Chuck said...

"However, it wasn't until I knelt down before Him, guilty and wretched, that I learned how different and kind He is - a far cry from how most people treat those who are vulnerable!"

What did he look like?

Chuck said...

"To accept science when it comes to your food but reject it when it comes to things like 'the soul' is the height of hipocrisy."

Or at least, incoherence and pretty bad evidence that Christianity is anything more than wishful thinking.

GT said...

Science also invented weapons of mass destruction and is the business of thousands of industries that exploit people and maliciously test animals. Does that make science evil? No, it means that some people use science in the wrong way. The same is true of Christianity. The type of faith taught in the New Testament is anything but evil or violent. But are there people who have killed and exploited in the name of Christianity? Sure there are. It seems science and Christianity have more in common that you'd care to admit.

My guess is that the church "done you wrong," and you've shaped your cognitive framework around your bitterness toward "Christianity" instead of on the foundation of pure reasoning. You're not a logical thinker, you're an emotive thinker.

Chuck said...

GT,

I'd suggest you consider that when judging John as an "emotive" rather than "logical" thinker, you really are indicting yourself.

It is illogical to think that science whose aim is provisional truth has anything in common with religion whose claim is absolute truth.

You are engaging in a post-hoc fallacy. Science did not cause the actions you cite. In some cases you can point to religion in causing them. Calvinism has informed and motivated Capitalism to the extent where innovation in certain industries (e.g. cosmetics, pharmaceuticals) has become the highest good. Science is a means to these ends but the cause of the action has more to do with the profit motive than it does with empiricism.

shane said...

GT.

You said the type of faith taught in the new testament is anyhting but violent.

Really? didn't jesus say he came to bring a sword?
didn't he say he came to bring division in the home and set family members against eachother?
didn't he make a whip of cords and whip people in the temple?

Is not the doctrine of eternal torture and horrible agony a violent doctrine?

Not everything in the NT is all loving and merciful!

Chuck said...

GT,

Revelation 19:11-20

This is how your good book concludes and what every Christian can't wait to happen.

"11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
17And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great."

19Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

Real peaceful-like ain't it.

normajean said...

To be clear, all beliefs (from sense, moral, God, take your pick) are formed in the intellect.
I trust my moral, sense data, and God experience—I’m a realist about them all. The fact is that we have mental data experiences, which we cannot get outside of in order to show their veridicality. From this, they share the same epistemological status. You simply accept them as fundamentally properly basic beliefs unless you’re given some reason to doubt them. Craig makes this point.

Compartmentalizing science and elevating its status doesn’t change our epistemological situation. Perhaps one can argue that various beliefs carry stronger certainty than others. We can know, for instance, that our hand exists with greater certainty than most else. That’s fine. But who cares? The best we can do is provide reasons why we believe X is true.

Unknown said...

Normajean: "You simply accept them as fundamentally properly basic beliefs unless you’re given some reason to doubt them. Craig makes this point."

Craig's reformed epistemology is recognized as special pleading by everyone who is not a Christian apologist. This hardly puts it in the same realm as the axioms of science. Nice try, but no.

Normajean: "The best we can do is provide reasons why we believe X is true."

Of course, we are all free to hold whatever beliefs we can. The difference is that the modern emprical sciences (MES) employ an epistemology by which we can create broad agreement about our beliefs.

To your question, who cares if the apologist is confident that they have an inner experience of God? It has no productive, predictive, or explanatory benefit independent of the one who makes the claim. It's only purpose appears to be the demanding of special privileges by those who make its claim.

GT said...

You completely missed my point. I didn't deny that Christianity, or other religions, have been responsible for atrocities throughout history. I merely responded to the notion that science is a pure, harmless, or flawless entity in which we should place our collective hope.

The notion that science can tell us everything is an outright fallacy. Science is an act of human observation, and unfortunately, human observation is extremely limited in time and space. One can observe that miracles don't normally happen, but it can't observe that they did not happen. Science can observe that things tend to evolve, but it cannot observe the origin of the universe. All your claims about what science CAN tell us are actually things that science simply has an inability to observe, and therefore you conclude by saying that science has disproven it. As far as miracles go, lack of proof does not equal disproof. As far as creationism goes, a hypothesis is not demonstrative of actuality, and many people (you included, it seems) are confusing hypothesis with fact.


Now about your elementary attempt to use scripture against me, even John Loftus, who has at least some exegetical experience by virtue of his seminary studies, can (but probably won't) tell you that you've all grossly misinterpreted the passages you so confidently cite to disprove my argument.

Shane, have you ever even read the Bible? Is that the best you can come up with? And Chuck, now nice of you to tell me what "every Christian can't wait to happen." That type of blanket statement demonstrates that you have zero philosophical training. You obviously have no concept of either Christian theology or literary genre, or else you wouldn't have made such a blunder of a comment. Take a quick glance in an ancient history book, and you might discover what "apocalyptic literature" is. You'll see that the word "apocalypse" has nothing to do with the end of the world. Of course, it's likely that your understanding of Revelation is informed by people like Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, and Hal Lindsay. Well, if that's your source, then I suppose I can't blame you for your skewed perception of Christian eschatology. Those men have done more harm to the face of Christendom than atheists could ever do.

Unknown said...

GT: "I merely responded to the notion that science is a pure, harmless, or flawless entity in which we should place our collective hope."

What? My "hopes" have nothing to do with the fact that the earth is round, or that it orbits around the sun, or that gravity works the way that it does, or that we evolved from prior organisms. I have become convinced that these things are so because the methodology of science has convinced me of their truth (more accurately, their very high probability). Whether or not I hope that reality is different is completely unassociated with what reality is, the description of which is the function of science.

GT: "The notion that science can tell us everything is an outright fallacy."

And asserting that anyone here made that claim is a misrepresentation.

GT: "All your claims about what science CAN tell us are actually things that science simply has an inability to observe, and therefore you conclude by saying that science has disproven it. As far as miracles go, lack of proof does not equal disproof. As far as creationism goes, a hypothesis is not demonstrative of actuality, and many people (you included, it seems) are confusing hypothesis with fact."

You should be aware that your words betray a poor understanding of science, little philosophical training (despite your claim to being logical), and a confused way of thinking. I'd suggest you try and be more specific, and confine your argument to one or very few things -- I don't have any interest in debating scientific issues with you unless you want to demonstrate a basic understanding of it. It sounds like you might be better versed in the Bible, and maybe you want to make an argument on those grounds?

Unknown said...

GT: "I merely responded to the notion that science is a pure, harmless, or flawless entity in which we should place our collective hope."

What? My "hopes" have nothing to do with the fact that the earth is round, or that it orbits around the sun, or that gravity works the way that it does, or that we evolved from prior organisms. I have become convinced that these things are so because the methodology of science has convinced me of their truth (more accurately, their very high probability). Whether or not I hope that reality is different is completely unassociated with what reality is, the description of which is the function of science.

GT: "The notion that science can tell us everything is an outright fallacy."

And asserting that anyone here made that claim is a misrepresentation.

GT: "All your claims about what science CAN tell us are actually things that science simply has an inability to observe, and therefore you conclude by saying that science has disproven it. As far as miracles go, lack of proof does not equal disproof. As far as creationism goes, a hypothesis is not demonstrative of actuality, and many people (you included, it seems) are confusing hypothesis with fact."

You should be aware that your words betray a poor understanding of science, little philosophical training (despite your claim to being logical), and a confused way of thinking. I'd suggest you try and be more specific, and confine your argument to one or very few things -- I don't have any interest in debating scientific issues with you unless you want to demonstrate a basic understanding of it. It sounds like you might be better versed in the Bible, and maybe you want to make an argument on those grounds?

shane said...

GT.
You asked if i ever read the Bible, yes i have.
I was a christian for a long time, i used to evangalize in downtown Brantford where i live, carrying an 8-foot cross on my shoulder!

I have read it and find it full of inconsistency and error!

Are you saying that my examples are unscriptural?

Sorry that i dont find the doctrine of hell to not be based on a non-violent God!
It is morally unjust to send people to hell for an infinite amount of time, for finite sins!

Especially a hell where no correction, no repentance, no good of any kind can come out of because your there forever!

Also, despite what you believe thats contrary to Hal Lindsay and the sort, Chuck gave perfectly scriptural evidence against your claim of non violence in the NT.

Im wondering if you ever read the Bible?

normajean said...

Tony, what is the argument against reformed epistemology? Are you under the impression that epistemology is not a human convention? Geez

RJC said...

I thought about believing this, but then I realized that it can’t be proven scientifically, and I read somewhere that you shouldn’t believe things that can’t be proven scientifically, so I was forced to reject it. I’m glad you have faith, though.

Anonymous said...

RJC, we cannot prove anything so why would you expect us to prove what is most probably the case with regard to science?

Anonymous said...

As I said, "Faith or Science?" Faith gets you no where. Faith flies planes into buildings. Science builds both planes and buildings.

Chuck said...

Norma you said,

"You simply accept them as fundamentally properly basic beliefs unless you’re given some reason to doubt them. Craig makes this point."

Yeah and I call that solipsism. The entire history of religion gives me reason to doubt the assertions Christians make. One only need to see the actions of Calvin towards Servetus to doubt the Calvinism you and Craig believe.

Build me a utilitous technology out of the information you claim superior (theology) to all other knowledge and I will trust, until then it seems about as real as the ground rules one reads in Dungeons and Dragons.

Chuck said...

GT you said,

"The notion that science can tell us everything is an outright fallacy."

Who is arguing this?

Don't create strawman now in support of your post-hoc fallacies.

Chuck said...

GT,

You said, "it's likely that your understanding of Revelation is informed by people like Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, and Hal Lindsay."

One wrote a best-seller outlining that eschatology and another founded a major university in adherence to that eschatology.

Yeah, I doubt a majority of believers agree with it (sarcasm).

Why do defensive Christians so easily make atheists points for them? Silly, just silly.

Chuck said...

Norma,

You said, "Tony, what is the argument against reformed epistemology? Are you under the impression that epistemology is not a human convention? Geez"

How about the historical argument against organized religion. Specifically the decision making power of John Calvin as it pertained to his treatment towards Michael Servetus. It's just a historical fact that Calvin's "inner witness" justified him in lying to Servetus to help him escape the Inquisition only to place him in trial in front of the Geneva officials which led to his death by burning at the stake. Your epistemology would allow for murder on the grounds of theological difference due to a, "properly basic belief". And seeing that Calvin is the forebear of both your and Craig's love of the "inner witness" it would seem illogical you would disagree with his application of it.

Chuck said...

RJC,

You said, "I thought about believing this, but then I realized that it can’t be proven scientifically, and I read somewhere that you shouldn’t believe things that can’t be proven scientifically, so I was forced to reject it. I’m glad you have faith, though."

I'd suggest you check this out http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

You make a self-refuting argument since langauge and science are based on the same principle, logic you prove the case for science by trying to cleverly argue against it. Without logic, your sentence is meaningless.

normajean said...

Chuck, the solution is easy. Calvin was wrong. Now what? I'll wait for a response to my original question and treat that as a usual red herring.

Tony Hoffman said...

Normajean: "Tony, what is the argument against reformed epistemology?"

The argument against reformed epistemology is that it is neither.

Normajean: "Are you under the impression that epistemology is not a human convention?"

I don't understand what you are asking -- I would say that epistemology is the study or explanation of knowledge (how it is that we know what we believe), and I don't know who else would be be discussing it besides we humans.

shane said...

NormaJean.

You said that Calvin was wrong.

You do realize that Calvinists would say you that are wrong?

Chuck said...

Norma,

"Chuck, the solution is easy. Calvin was wrong. Now what? I'll wait for a response to my original question and treat that as a usual red herring."

Than so is your idea that christianity is warranted due to the "inner witness" hypothesis.

Thanks for helping us atheists debunk your superstition.

Chuck said...

Norma,

You do realize your answer to me destroyed the basis of your epistemology correct?

And it wasn't a red herring. I simply cited the forebear of your truth standard.

Yo said...

No John!

"People" fly planes into buildings, and "people" build planes and buildings!!!

The problem isn't faith or science; it's people! Both faith and science have been used for both good and evil.

You atheists and theists make me sick with all your B.S.!

Yo said...

So, I don't accept what you tell me John, since you're not "science."

"People" tell us things John. And "people" often make mistakes (atheist and theist).

Grow up John.

shane said...

YO.

Thanks for the input, but why are you reading all this and replying to it if it makes you sick?

This is a subject some people care to talk about!

Yes, people are people, some are bad some are good i agree.

Anonymous said...

What does science tell you about love? About sacrifice of self for others?

Are they not real?

Anonymous said...

What does science tell you about love? About sacrifice of self for others?

Are they not real?

Tony Hoffman said...

theoldadam: "What does science tell you about love? About sacrifice of self for others?"

Lots. You should make yourself familiar with genetics and evolutionary psychology, among others. Hamilton's work on kin selection, Dawkins' explanations in The Selfish Gene, Pinker's books on hard wiring and the environment in books like "The Agile Mind" all tell us far, far more than thousands of years of philosophy.

Gandolf said...

Yo said... "No John!

"People" fly planes into buildings, and "people" build planes and buildings!!!

The problem isn't faith or science; it's people! Both faith and science have been used for both good and evil.

You atheists and theists make me sick with all your B.S.!"
..............................

Yo need to be careful,or you`ll go getting those christian knickers in wee twistys.

Good science simply doesnt contain the type of "doctrine needed" with the type of typical faith bias and bigotry that suggests people need faith and that certain faiths and its followers have reasons to need to be segregated shunned or controlled and manipulated etc.

"Faith science" is much more involved in those areas.

That these folks many of them faithful, while warring have also chosen to adopted scientific knowledge to make use of it,is not any fault of science itself.

Faith books: DO actually contain much suggestive material,that often sets one group above the other that then become the cause of the instability.They often suggest of other alternative beliefs that they are infedels, and that there is supposedly actually good reasons they should need to be shunned or illtreated etc.

Faiths doctrines include this type of doctrine that historically has been known to quite often make many human relationships unstable.We even see this phenomena displayed even within the very many unstable dominations of Christianity itself.


Science: Yo! ....Now what science doctrine do you suggest there is available that suggests this type of action?.

You cannot blame science itself, simply because some faithful crackpot nutcases happen to adopt it and choose to use the science harmfully.

RKBentley said...

But science is not omniscient. What if we had followed this advice 100 years ago? 200 years ago? We might still have blood-letting because "science" told us that blood-letting healed people. And do you think science today is suddenly perfect? 100 years from now the future generation will look back at today's scientists in much the same way as we look back at blood-letters.

Breckmin said...

Science itself doesn't make those claims.

It is "scientists" using assumptions of uniformity and inductions which make many of those claims - and their are other scientists who disagree.

Any mature Christian would never test God by participating in experiments regarding prayer...so those experiments are already self-defeating within the agreed set of assumptions of born-again Christianity and will only be misinterpreted based on the false assumptions that you had righteous people (Christ's righteousness NOT their own sanctimonious righteousness)actually praying in those so called "prayer experiments."

As a Christian I look at those and seems axiomatic that you are asking for God's judgment in that the group "praying" to test God will actually do more harm in testing God than good.

Question everything.

Tony Hoffman said...

Breckmin: "Any mature Christian would never test God by participating in experiments regarding prayer..."

You should familiarize yourself with the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Breckmin: "Question everything."

I agree that this is an excellent policy. It is the stated policy of science. Unfortunately, it is not the stated policy of any religion. You should consider that fact as deeply as you can muster.

Gandolf said...

Breckmin said... "Any mature Christian would never test God by participating in experiments regarding prayer...so those experiments are already self-defeating within the agreed set of assumptions of born-again Christianity and will only be misinterpreted based on the false assumptions that you had righteous people (Christ's righteousness NOT their own sanctimonious righteousness)actually praying in those so called "prayer experiments."


So you appeal to the assumptions of born again christians,this is the higher "standard" you choose and suggest we should simply accept?.

What logical reason have we to believe this standard is even knowledgeble?.What logical reason have we got, to prefer word of born again christian,over against word of science?

Here you rebuke science for applying science,(which has been proven to work and even you yourself use products of it),and you simple impose the standard of born again christians(people who historically have always proved half the time they dont really seem to know whether they are Arthur or Martha)

What logical reason is there we should see to have good reason to accept what you impose?.It seems silly

You suggest we shouldnt be measuring miracles,yet obviously the bible does...Why would the bible contain knowledge of the results of miracles,if people never dared test it?.

I dont even seem to make much good sense Breckmin.

normajean said...

Here's what people here said about Reformed Epistemology. I won't defend myself.

1. Craig's reformed epistemology is recognized as special pleading by everyone who is not a Christian apologist. This hardly puts it in the same realm as the axioms of science. Nice try, but no.

2. Of course, we are all free to hold whatever beliefs we can. The difference is that the modern emprical sciences (MES) employ an epistemology by which we can create broad agreement about our beliefs.

Me: I can agree with this comment.

Someone continues: To your question, who cares if the apologist is confident that they have an inner experience of God? It has no productive, predictive, or explanatory benefit independent of the one who makes the claim. It's only purpose appears to be the demanding of special privileges by those who make its claim.

Me: Irrelevant

3. Yeah and I call that solipsism. The entire history of religion gives me reason to doubt the assertions Christians make. One only need to see the actions of Calvin towards Servetus to doubt the Calvinism you and Craig believe.

Me: Huh? To be clear, Reformed epistemology is NOT Calvinism. AND, Reformed epistemology is not the only Epis-position compatible with my OP.

Build me a utilitous technology out of the information you claim superior (theology) to all other knowledge and I will trust, until then it seems about as real as the ground rules one reads in Dungeons and Dragons.

Me: Huh? Irrelevant.

4. NormaJean said, "Tony, what is the argument against reformed epistemology? Are you under the impression that epistemology is not a human convention? Geez"

Some guy responded: How about the historical argument against organized religion. Specifically the decision making power of John Calvin as it pertained to his treatment towards Michael Servetus. It's just a historical fact that Calvin's "inner witness" justified him in lying to Servetus to help him escape the Inquisition only to place him in trial in front of the Geneva officials which led to his death by burning at the stake. Your epistemology would allow for murder on the grounds of theological difference due to a, "properly basic belief". And seeing that Calvin is the forebear of both your and Craig's love of the "inner witness" it would seem illogical you would disagree with his application of it.

Me: epistemology is not a moral imperatives. What the heck are you talking about…?

5. The argument against reformed epistemology is that it is neither.
I would say that epistemology is the study or explanation of knowledge (how it is that we know what we believe), and I don't know who else would be be discussing it besides we humans.

6. You said that Calvin was wrong.

You do realize that Calvinists would say you that are wrong?

7. Norma,

"Chuck, the solution is easy. Calvin was wrong. Now what? I'll wait for a response to my original question and treat that as a usual red herring."

Than so is your idea that christianity is warranted due to the "inner witness" hypothesis.

Thanks for helping us atheists debunk your superstition.

Me: LOL

8. Norma,

You do realize your answer to me destroyed the basis of your epistemology correct?

And it wasn't a red herring. I simply cited the forebear of your truth standard.

I’m speechless!

Chuck said...

Norma

Stick to liftin weights. Plantinga, not Craig, is the author of Reformed Epistemology and, the concept is born from his Calvinism. What is your understanding of RE? You don't seem to know the philosopher championing it nor the religious tradition inspiring him.

normajean said...

Again, I'm speechless.

Take care

Christian Agnostic said...

Yet another false dichotomy postulated between science and faith. Oh sigh. People of faith can (And do) accept the contemporary scientific paradigm as the way in which God has made himself known. Yes, there are creationists and they are very much mistaken. But you don't have to choose between science and faith. You can have both. And science when ungoverned by a guiding sense of ethics brought us the atom bomb, germ warfare and eugenics. There is an ongoing dialogue to be had, but posts like this don't really contribute to it.

Yo said...

Oh, and John,

That's really honest, accurate, and scholarly of you to pick on dumb Christians all through this post, and then talk about something catastrophic that Christians had nothing to do with (9/11) at the very end!

Gandolf said...

Christian Agnostic said... "And science when ungoverned by a guiding sense of ethics brought us the atom bomb, germ warfare and eugenics"

The particular set of guiding ethics that was around and in power at the time that quickly brought us the first atomic bomb,was predominately voted in by christians. British forces had used smallpox as warfare,long before German Army ever developed anthrax.Faithful folks often even practice their own type of eugenics,when they tend to prefer to marry only those within their own type faith groups, and tend to shun the ideas of marrying into any others.

It wasnt really that science was ever ungoverned,science doesnt really possess a will of its own.

Science is not like some supernatural being that has its own mind, thats dangerous if it gets out of control.

Chuck said...

"Again, I'm speechless"

Is this because you think you are correct in assuming Craig came up with RE or is it because you don't have a reply when I ask you to describe it?

Chuck said...

Christian Agnostic

I am a sample of 1 but, the public divide I saw between science and faith as evidenced by the Dover case, the Expelled, and Sam Harris' book The End of Faith drew me in. I entered an Evangelical Christian with a Calvinist hermeneutic and left 20 months later an atheist. It seems that there is a fervent group of smug people who believe their belief can inform public opinion without those beliefs being challenged as useful or true (See Normajean and his endorsement of Reformed Epistemology - actually he is talking about Warranted Belief but he thinks he is discussing RE - but he has yet to respond to any challenges). When I discovered the lies and political agenda of the Discovery Institute I understood that my belief that there is a safe cushion between religion and faith was over. That began my questioning of all I claimed as settled using John's Outsider Test for Faith went from agnosticism to atheism.

Care to tell us why the well-funded Discovery Institute's aims at theocracy are not threatening?

Chuck said...

Apologies Norma,

I am claiming you claimed Craig invented Reformed Epistemology when you never claimed that.

You did say that, "The best we can do is provide reasons why we believe X is true."

Care to share what your reasons are?

I'm sure there are many of us on here who had the same and can dialogue on it.

You might want to read where the idea of Warrant came from and the religious tradition it operates from before you dismiss historical arguments against it as red herrings. Illustrations as to why something fails in practice (Calvin and Geneva) can be a test to something's veridicality and estimate one's epistemology.

You seem cocky. Usually guys like you who come on here have interesting points of view.

What are they?

Unknown said...

Norma Jean: "I’m speechless!"

I believe you are implying that the responses to your comments are so outlandish that you don't know where to start.

This also happens when one has nothing substantial to say or argue. I'm happy to let readers here make their own judgment about your silence should you care to continue it.

normajean said...

Thanks, Chuck!

Very briefly, I ran across an old link I have with Plantinga and Kuhn discussing RE. At one point the "Great Pumpkin" objection came up. It's an enjoyable interview--Nothing demonstrable, but enjoyable.

http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/Arguments-About-God-Alvin-Plantinga-/213

I'll be digging up my lawn today. Apparently, my dog's urine is too strong for grass!

normajean said...

My main beef is this: We regularly trust in the reliability of our belief forming mechanism when it informs us of an external physical universe (we could be brains in vats!), but in cases where a belief forming mechanism delivers convictions about the existence of God, the human condition, and moral values, people demand “proof” for objectivity—Double standard?

I’m making the strong claim that as the intellect is causally related to the physical universe, it too is causally related to a metaphysical realm—And while the degree of certainty for knowledge on physical objects is stronger than the degree of certainty on meta-objectivity claims (assuming our faculties are reliable), lack of certitude isn’t enough to undercut ones justification for belief in part because the epistemic status remains the same in that there is no getting outside of these experiences to test for veridicality.

Confusion here explains why an inordinate number of Christians resist philosophy, argument, and doubting their beliefs. They’re afraid that if they can’t prove their faith with certainty that they’re not rational or justified in believing what they believe is true. But that’s just stupid! Knowledge comes in degrees of certainty. For example, I’m more certain that my hand exists than various other things, but that doesn’t mean that the lesser things don’t count as knowledge. All one needs is good reasons to believe X is true. Certainty is goofy!

Evidentiary arguments skip a step in the argument. To be clear, our first step involves a deep commitment or assumption related to the question here: To be blunt, how do we get outside of the voices in our head to test for veridicality? Evidentialism begs the question!

normajean said...

Two more things, to be clear: 1. I’m not anti-empiricism, though I see it as truncated. 2. Any criterion or knowledge theory is arbitrary, leads to circularity, and warrants skepticism. This is why I’m not handcuffed to some specified law of justification. More, this is why there is no philosophical consensus on what ought to count as *evidence*.

I've got to hit the yard now. If I have time later, I'll follow up.

Unknown said...

Normajean: “We regularly trust in the reliability of our belief forming mechanism when it informs us of an external physical universe (we could be brains in vats!),…”

I’d say that we normally assume the premise that we are not brains in vats, although this is kind of irrelevant; we experience what we believe is the outside world, but whether the world truly exists or only our experience of it makes no practical difference.

“…but in cases where a belief forming mechanism delivers convictions about the existence of God, the human condition, and moral values, people demand “proof” for objectivity—Double standard?”

No on double standard. Belief in an outside world, other minds, etc., is virtually universal. It is also quite handy in predicting and explaining our experiences. Belief about God, the human condition, and moral values are highly variable and therefore contentious, especially because they have real-world impacts – people go to war over God, choose to abet or worsen the human condition (thwart desires), control others based on moral values that are sometimes counter-intuitive or poorly justified, etc. In short, there is very good reason to question the justifications for the convictions you mention.

Normajean: “I’m making the strong claim that as the intellect is causally related to the physical universe, it too is causally related to a metaphysical realm—And while the degree of certainty for knowledge on physical objects is stronger than the degree of certainty on meta-objectivity claims (assuming our faculties are reliable), lack of certitude isn’t enough to undercut ones justification for belief in part because the epistemic status remains the same in that there is no getting outside of these experiences to test for veridicality.”

Yes, that is quite a strong claim you’re making. I would say that certitude about those things we either know very little about or are unknowable are the source of many of our problems. Hence, the healthy benefits of skepticism.

Normajean: “Confusion here explains why an inordinate number of Christians resist philosophy, argument, and doubting their beliefs. They’re afraid that if they can’t prove their faith with certainty that they’re not rational or justified in believing what they believe is true. But that’s just stupid! Knowledge comes in degrees of certainty. For example, I’m more certain that my hand exists than various other things, but that doesn’t mean that the lesser things don’t count as knowledge. All one needs is good reasons to believe X is true. Certainty is goofy!”

I think you may want to consider the reasonable expectation that Christians should be modest about their faith to the extent that they can know it to be true. I think that metaphysical questions and spritual understanding are fine things to explore, but our ability to know such things has less than the weight of a butterfly. I would say that if Christians confined their spiritual understanding and hopes in the same place they find them (internally), we might all get along far better.

Chuck said...

Normajean you said,

"My main beef is this: We regularly trust in the reliability of our belief forming mechanism when it informs us of an external physical universe (we could be brains in vats!), but in cases where a belief forming mechanism delivers convictions about the existence of God, the human condition, and moral values, people demand “proof” for objectivity—Double standard?"

I only see a double standard if we choose to apply different methodologies in determining those reliabilities.

Faith-based belief within RE holds that the believers faculties offer evidence to a warranted belief. This warranted belief then becomes the data set on which absolute truth is declared. If the absolute truth which the warranted belief is challenged then the warranted belief is invoked as evidence to the absolute truth. This seems to me a circular pattern of logic which the belief as stated is never subject to falsifiability. The lack of falsifiability renders a data set untestable and essentially unknowable.

The evidence for an external universe can be extrapolated by a variety of testable hypotheses predicated on falsifiable data. If I choose to challenge a scientific provisional truth then I can request the data set by which the provisional truth was derived and, if I am capable of examining the experiment or modeling born from that data set, can either confirm the provisional truth or provide a hypothesis to replace the provisional truth.

The same cannot be said of warranted belief. If anyone has a double-standard it is the person clinging to reformed epistemology as a standard for truth equal to empiricism. You judge empiricism to be truncated simply because the methodology which allows empiricism to be practiced demands its truncation but, do not consider any problem with the non-falsifiability of your "inner witness".

You judge the imperfection of empirical data without subjecting your "inner witness" to any similar objective criteria to consider its value.

Also, the whole "brain in the vat" thought experiment is the kind of thing that helped push me towards atheism. When an objective standard is demanded for the absolute truth claims Christians make we have to entertain the kind of thought experiments you impose. The consistency of this apologetic only seemed to confirm for me that my Christianity was an emotionally-driven control belief, culturally accepted and used to hedge my fears against the randomness of life. It is as true as wishful thinking is true.

jwhendy said...

This whole area is a difficult one, I think. While science has told us a lot, I think we would all agree that it's not as if we can't act based on a belief that science has not confirmed. This was hinted at above (e.g. Can I believe you a 'real' since science hasn't confirmed it?).

I wrote a bunch but just deleted it because I can't really articulate it well. My puzzlement has to do with whether the could be a realm of 'other' without there needing to be a soul or spirit, for example. I find the area of '6th sense' experiences, coincidences, and the placebo effect fascinating. I realize these are not outside of our knowing at some point, but they are experiences that we should recognize. I had my first major 'conversion' on February 19th 2002. I see the numbers 219 (as in Feb 19) all the time. I used to think of it as god's reminder of him rescuing me from my addictions. Who knows? I am currently doubting all things spiritual and am less inclined toward that, but I can absolutely attest to these occurrences. I work at a very large R&D company and just so happen to work in... Bldg. 219. I see 12:19am and pm, 2:19pm, etc. a lot. Are these just common times around the middle of the day when I look at a clock (as in around lunch time or an afternoon break)? Who knows. I should perhaps pick another time or number and see if it appears as often.

Not that this shows anything, but the area interests me.

jwhendy said...

Lastly, here's my contribution to the discussion between normajean, Chuck, et al: I am more and more frustrated as I attempt to search for reasons to believe.

I listened to a debate between Flew and Craig. I want to be brief because I think my hypothetical dialog below gets my point across. Essentially, Flew brings up the unfair nature of the doctrine of hell (citing Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, and Paul in Romans as references) and Craig completely dismisses him because he uses the doctrine of Aquinas on 'divine concurrence' or something like that and if you move on to the doctrine of Molina, a Jesuit, you don't have these Thomistic problems anymore.

Read the dialog below and see my thoughts on a potential example of the science vs. faith/theology double standard being discussed.

-------
Theist: What started the universe? Bet you can't answer that!

Atheist: We're working on it. We don't know yet, but science is advancing all the time and is probably going to be more and more apt to answer questions like this. Will you give it, say, 100 more years to wait and find out?

Theist: No way! I don't need to wait and find out. I already know. God created the universe, you idiot. Looks like science doesn't know sh*t about what really matters.

-------
Atheist: So, I was pondering hell and just realized that since god is omnipotent and omniscient and 'in him we move and have our being' that his will actually planned my life ahead of time. Basically, I can't surprise him with my choices and since he made me how I am, he made me to either go to heaven or hell.

Theist: Not true, dumb**s. That's only the case for Thomas Aquinas subscribers. He's way wrong on this. You've got to go with Molina, man. He gets it right and shows it's just our choice and god is still perfect.

Atheist: Wait, when was Aquinas doing all his stuff?

Theist: 1200's

Atheist: And Molina?

Theist: 1500's.

Athesit: Wait, you gave theology almost 1600 years to figure out answers to my objections but won't give me a hundred to keep studying the universe?

Theist: What's the problem?
---------

Not only are none of these theological claims testable... they are literally built to defend a prior assertion that the god as defined by Christianity exists. It's like a retrospective think tank where you just chuck in all your hypotheses and the church hierarchy waits to see who the winner is over hundreds of years.

What if I write a book today stating that the multiverse theory for the universe origins is correct and then gave far-fetched reasons why it's correct and all of these reasons completely support the multiverse theory but are untestable and outside of the possibility of even refuting. What if in 1000 years someone quotes my book as not having been disproved, and in addition cites 100 individuals since me who thought up even better and more grandiose intangible/unobservable reasons why it's absolutely true. Will any Christians de-convert because of my arguments?

Didn't think so.

Chuck said...

Hendy,

Good thoughts.

What gets me is that theists have the 1st amendment to believe all that want to believe yet insist that I must live by their standards too or, at the very least, I don't get to see their highly subjective supernaturalism as specious.

I never understood the need for Christians to seek out legal recourse to define their faith as the superior social ideology when I was a believer and I find it even stranger now that I am an atheist.

Most theists who demand respect confuse me. The history of their ideas in practice is bad evidence that those ideas are true or good.

normajean said...

Thanks for your interesting responses. I will make just a few points.

I wrote: We regularly trust in the reliability of our belief forming mechanism when it informs us of an external physical universe (we could be brains in vats!), but in cases where a belief forming mechanism delivers convictions about the existence of God, the human condition, and moral values, people demand “proof” for objectivity—Double standard?"

Your response: I only see a double standard if we choose to apply different methodologies in determining those reliabilities.

ME: There is some confusion here about double standards. The commitments we make are to a ‘belief mechanism’ not a methodology. On the one hand, you affirm cognition when it describes sense data. On what grounds do you shut it off when it reveals metaphysical truths? Certainly, there is more to justification than certainty.

You wrote: Faith-based belief within RE holds that the believers faculties offer evidence to a warranted belief. This warranted belief then becomes the data set on which absolute truth is declared. If the absolute truth which the warranted belief is challenged then the warranted belief is invoked as evidence to the absolute truth. This seems to me a circular pattern of logic which the belief as stated is never subject to falsifiability. The lack of falsifiability renders a data set untestable and essentially unknowable.

ME: In the first place, properly basic beliefs are IMMEDIATE to us (like a first principle). They are not conclusions drawn from premises in an 'argument' that we call 'evidence.' They are also not inferences. This avoids the apparent circularity.

Second, at least some theological beliefs are falsifiable! To borrow from Plantinga, the claim that an intelligent designer has designed 800-pound rabbits that live in Cleveland is clearly testable, clearly falsifiable and indeed clearly false. Swap out the rabbits for something else and have fun with your falsification principle. On falsifiability again—Let's say a theologian made claims about irreducible complexity in mind theories. Chalmers makes similar claims when he proposes something along the lines of panpsychism. If undirected physicalism is true, then isn’t IC falsified? As for God belief, once it is established what we mean by God, then we’re in a position to construct defeaters for that claim. But all of this is red herring talk in knowledge theory. Knowing and showing are separate domains.

How do we get outside of the voices in our head to test for veridicality? The 'evidence' response simply doesn't do.

Have the last word

Chuck said...

Thanks Normajean. I continue to agree with the title of the blog post and as long as you keep your inner witness in the privacy of your home and church, I am cool with that.

I do think you are being facetious when you argue for properly basic belief outside of the complications wrought by its use as an information system. If you want to have your properly basic belief float as an abstraction then we are at peace but, your properly basic belief animates theology and then public policy which connects to that properly basic belief. If you will not allow me independent investigation of the basis of your belief then I must reject it on the grounds of equality.

Christian Agnostic said...

Chuck O Connor wrote

"The End of Faith drew me in. I entered an Evangelical Christian with a Calvinist hermeneutic and left 20 months later an atheist"

I don't think a Calvinist hermeneutic can stand up to rigorous investigation Your conversion to atheism I fully understand on those terms. I also believe that the Discovery Institute is misguided but doubt that there is much appetite for a theocracy. There are also many Christians who would stand against the Discovery Insitute and their aims, but would also stand for Christ.

Chuck said...

CA,

You said, "There are also many Christians who would stand against the Discovery Insitute and their aims, but would also stand for Christ."

I agree with you on this in theory (what American wants a friggin' Theocracy) but, unfortunately know too many Calvinist Christians who worship their bibles as a means of serving "King Jesus". The Discovery Institute becomes the public muscle they crave.

Chuck said...

One last thing Normajean,

You said, "In the first place, properly basic beliefs are IMMEDIATE to us (like a first principle)."

Why then do I see your Christianity as nothing more than foolish wishful thinking and culturally agreed upon superstition? Is that a first principle of mine. To be skeptical of the fantastic? I think it is.

O'Brien said...

"Since science tells us prayer doesn't work then it doesn't work."

According to whom?

"It tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old."

Yes, and I accept that.

"It tells us there was no Israelite Exodus from Egypt."

No, it does not.

"It tells us the Nativity stories in the Gospels could not be true. It tells us virgins do not have babies."

We have had the technology to produce virgin births for about 30 years now. If we can arrange for a virgin birth with our feeble technology, then surely the Creator of the universe can cause a virgin to give birth.

"It tells us that dead people do not bodily rise from the grave."

The texts do not claim Jesus rose spontaneously from the dead but that God raised him from the dead. Science has nothing to say about the latter.

"Christians must denigrate science in order to believe. Science or Faith? Science has a track record. Faith flies planes into buildings. Science all the way, hands down. End of story."

I don't understand how you could expect anyone to take you seriously when you post drivel like this.

Chuck said...

R

I think you miss the point within John's rhetoric.

I'll ask it more directly, what does the historic alteration of Christianity's absolute truth claims due to corresponding scientific discoveries say about Christianity's claims to realistic authority?

shane said...

R O'Brian.

The difference between the virgin birth in the bible and what your saying about our technology in regards to virgins getting pregnant, is that the bible claims that Mary had no help from Joseph or any other man in her conception!
Where as our modern technology still requires the male seed to
pregnate a woman!

How do you not see this?

Also, you said that the text doesn't claim Jesus spontaneously rose from the dead but that God raised Him!
Acording to christian theology Jesus is God remember! if God rose Him then he must have rose Himself, if He did not raise Himself then He was not God!

Here is some christian irrationalism for you!

shane said...

R O'Brian.

You also said that prayer doesn't work according to whom? and refered to mans feeble technology.

Well, mans feeble technology has created vaccines and cures for many diseases and illnesses, i dont remember any act of God doing this on prayer!

Tony Hoffman said...

OP: "Since science tells us prayer doesn't work then it doesn't work."

R O'Brien: "According to whom?"

A lot to unpack there in your 3 word question. Number one, (unlike Religion, which is based on authority) science does not rely on individual authority, but a system that builds a consensus of opinion; experiments are duplicatable, etc. So I'd ask, "According to what?" rather than whom.

And prayer doesn't work according to the process of science; more specifically, hypotheses to test the practical effects of prayer (regrow limbs, etc.) all disprove those hypotheses.

Of course, you can always claim the No True Scotsman fallacy, etc., but be aware that defenses that try to get around the proven ineffectiveness of prayer (compared with, say, my son's asthma medication) are all clearly excuse making or special pleading to those who don't assume their conclusions.

Why, as they say, does God hate amputees?

O'Brien said...

"The difference between the virgin birth in the bible and what your saying about our technology in regards to virgins getting pregnant, is that the bible claims that Mary had no help from Joseph or any other man in her conception!
Where as our modern technology still requires the male seed to
pregnate a woman!"

Yes, Jesus had to get his Y chromosome from somewhere, but God could have created a zygote with any Y chromosome he pleased.

Incidentally, I am on the fence re: the virgin birth, not because I think it is impossible but because Mark, John, and Paul do not mention it.

"Acording to christian theology Jesus is God remember! if God rose Him then he must have rose Himself, if He did not raise Himself then He was not God!"

What makes you think I am a trinitarian?

"A lot to unpack there in your 3 word question. Number one, (unlike Religion, which is based on authority) science does not rely on individual authority, but a system that builds a consensus of opinion; experiments are duplicatable, etc. So I'd ask, 'According to what?' rather than whom."

Your pedantry is noted, but I was asking for a specific study or studies, which are not performed by themselves, but by people. Hence the _whom_. Incidentally, what science have you performed? I am a coauthor on 3 papers (cortisol and cortical thicknesses, depression and cognition, cortisol and cognition).

shane said...

R O'Brian.

I assume most christians believe in the trinity, you did not verify either way.

And if the Biblical God exists, then He obviously could create any chromosome He chose, but the reality of the Biblical God is the question at hand!

shane said...

R O'Brian.

You said you were on the fence about the virgin birth because certain Biblical authors make no mention of it.

My question though, is wouldn't that compremise the truthfulness and infallibility of the Bible as a whole insofar as your belief's go since some authors do claim the virgin birth?

This is assuming you believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired, word of God.

shane said...

sorry, that would be compromise, not compremise!, my spelling mistake!

Tony Hoffman said...

RO: “Your pedantry is noted, but I was asking for a specific study or studies, which are not performed by themselves, but by people.”

Hmm. You challenged John’s (provocative) assertion that “"Since science tells us prayer doesn't work then it doesn't work," by asking, “According to whom?” I will grant that you meant “What studies conclude this” but please accept my explanation that I understood you to mean for John to list individuals (which I found sincerely odd).

Do you mean to imply that you think that the efficacy of prayer is a live issue in science, and that you are unaware of any scientific studies whose hypothesis that prayer (not a placebo effect) is effective hasn’t been disproven? You say you are a scientist – do you really think that prayer is scientifically testable? And if so, do you have any references that have survived peer review and whose results have been duplicated? (Because I’m sure I can dig around and find some links to articles and studies I’ve read in the past that indicate otherwise.)

RO: “Incidentally, what science have you performed? I am a coauthor on 3 papers (cortisol and cortical thicknesses, depression and cognition, cortisol and cognition).”

I’m not a professional scientist, but I’ve done lab work in chemistry and physics in college. Recently, my son and I did an experiment on ski wax and temperatures. (It involved 4 different waxes, a cheese grater, one thermostat, one thermometer, an infrared thermal reader, and a hot box I built last year.) Admittedly, we haven’t published our results. But it did settle a question that we couldn’t find the answer to anywhere else. Do you mean to imply that only those who author papers in scientific journals can reliably employ or understand scientific methods?

Do you have an answer to the question of why God must hate amputees?

normajean said...

Chuck, properly basic beliefs aren't perceived by all persons. And certainly, that's not the point of reformed epistemology. I'll try to explain that another time.

All, can anyone see that the title of this thread is self-refuting?

Widen your epistemology fast!

Chuck said...

Normajean

I thought you said I'd have the last word. Why didn't your "inner witness" keep you from lying? I think your RE is special pleading and your epistemology would lead you to fetch firewood to burn heretics if it were not for the enlightenment. Widen your sense of history, RE isn't a new idea. It is an exclusive and bad one.

Russ said...

This really is a rather comical exchange.

For instance, R O'Brien said,

Yes, Jesus had to get his Y chromosome from somewhere, but God could have created a zygote with any Y chromosome he pleased.

Remember, gods, including the Christian God, are magic, and, under the rules of magic, there are no rules. God was not constrained by the chemical basis of genetics. In fact, if the Roman Catholics are correct with that theological tidbit, transubstantiation - and, of course, being religious and all, they must be correct, or there would be no reason to be Roman Catholic - then Jesus has the same genome as baking flour, apparently self-rising, if you buy into that resurrection thing.

I worked in one of the molecular toxicology laboratories of a major chemical company when I was younger and I observed first-hand the tests done on the cracker-turned-host. I thought the guys were nuts to even think that the incantations and spells breathed by priests would somehow alter the genetics, and, guess what?: I was right. Or was I?

No. Wait. Since this is magic, the cracker could start out as a real honest-to-god flour-stamped bus token; be converted to Jesus nuggets as the spell takes hold; then, when god sees what's happening on that electrophoresis gel, quick as a wink, he switches it back. Magic is so useful for keeping us humans from finding god where the religious tell us to look for him.

For a moment, when that DNA analysis showed flour, I thought Jesus was closer to semolina than savior and genetically closer to a pasta called mostaccioli than to a virgin named Mary. Then, religion's light of mystery reminded me: MAGIC! Science counts for zilch when magic is involved. Nothing is reliable when magic is involved. Boy oh boy, that god sure has a way of keeping us silly humans humbled, and ignorant of him, doesn't he?

But, hold on just a minute, I thought god wanted us to know him. Oh, well, maybe god just wants us to be acquaintances instead of friends. Maybe god wants us to be friends of friends. Maybe being friends with god is like being on Facebook: you're not necessarily friends, you're more like someone who knows someone who knows someone else. Or, who knows, maybe god just likes keeping us in the dark? This experiment would have proven something to our little pack of clandestine researchers, and God wouldn't have needed to allow it to be repeated.

Still I wonder, if the cracker changes from flour to Jesus meat, why does it still taste like flour? Oh, yeah! More magic. God could make Jesus meat taste like eggplant if he wanted to.

Thinking religiously, Jesus did not have to have DNA at all, but, if he did, magic means he didn't have to share any with his mother, his father, or a yak. Jesus was god after all, and god can't have DNA, or else he would be a material being. When we see pictures of Jesus, sometimes he looks like Saddam Hussein, sometimes he looks like Malcolm X, and sometimes he looks like Val Kilmer. Most of the time here in the US, Jesus looks like Jim Caviezel, pretty white skin, and, full and flowing chestnut locks and beard, very un-Middle Eastern.

Yes, this exchange is quite funny.

Tony Hoffman said...

Normajean: "Chuck, properly basic beliefs aren't perceived by all persons."

WTF? How would you know the inner witness isn't perceived by all persons? Does your inner witness give you this knowledge?

Normajean: "All, can anyone see that the title of this thread is self-refuting? Widen your epistemology fast!"

The title of this post is, I believe, deliberately provocative. But you have not risen to even make a defense against it, even though it probably has staked out territory worth you're trying to reclaim.

shane said...

Russ.

Whats so funny about what i wrote to O'Brian?

He said why is the virgin birth so hard to believe when we can artificially insemenate a women today? i was expalianing the obvious difference!

What he said about y chromosomes was a little off key, but i agreed for arguments sake if the Biblical existed (which i dont think He does) then He would be able to obviously create another person out of no where!

The reality of the Biblical God or any God is the real question!

So whats so funny about that?

Tony Hoffman said...

Russ, good stuff. I also think it's funny that the Christian would "reason" toward how Jesus got his Y chromosome -- I mean, why draw a line of understanding there as opposed to further up or down the chain of explanation?

If God is all powerful, and we cannot fully comprehend him, then Christian rationality appears to me to be indistinguishable from the bumper sticker "Shit happens."

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

Tony you said,

"WTF? How would you know the inner witness isn't perceived by all persons? Does your inner witness give you this knowledge?"

And therein lies the rub with both RE and Calvinism.

They need to be renamed for what they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Russ said...

As an interesting sidenote, a few dozen virgins get pregnant every year here in the US. I have a personal friend, a family practitioner, who has seen it twice in thirty years of practice. Hymens don't need to be broken for sperm to enter the vagina. Penises do not need to enter vaginas for sperm to make their way to an egg. A nice blob of premature ejaculate lands in the right labial folds, and the sperm do the rest. Virginity need not be lost for fertilization to happen. Torn hymens and penile penetration just make the process more efficient by shortening the swim.

Tony Hoffman said...

Normajean: "Chuck, properly basic beliefs aren't perceived by all persons. And certainly, that's not the point of reformed epistemology. I'll try to explain that another time."

I think I should start collecting all the excuses apologist use for maintaining the validity of their epistemology without providing an explanation. It always seems to be of the "running out of time, have to finish working on a paper, don't have time to explain [pet, usually medieval] philosophy in detail, etc. variety."

I have participated in these discussion for years now. I have yet to see an apologist provide anything close to a valid explanation for their beliefs. Either said explanations don't exist, or apologists are the busiest people in the world.

normajean said...

Tony, excuse me? Any criterion or theory of knowledge is arbitrary, leads to circularity, and warrants skepticism. This is why I’m not handcuffed to some specified law of justification. Certainly, I’m not handcuffed to the sort of incoherence tied to the title of this post. A little self reflection and humility would do you well. Best

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Sorry for neglecting to respond timely here, but Chuck quoted me and responded,

"However, it wasn't until I knelt down before Him, guilty and wretched, that I learned how different and kind He is - a far cry from how most people treat those who are vulnerable!"

What did he look like?"
Chuck, I thought you were a Christian at one time... curious that you claim that and yet ask me what He looks like. So, what did He look like? Because you have asked, I'll tell you --- completely void of condemnation, pure unadulterated love, 100% grace--- you probably remember now what He looked like, right?? So now I'll ask you --- did your parents, a teacher, a relative or close family friend look like Him? Did you ever look like Him???

Tony Hoffman said...

Normajean: " Any criterion or theory of knowledge is arbitrary, leads to circularity, and warrants skepticism."

And you are free to make an argument for how this relates to your argument that the OP is incoherent. So far, you have just made unsupported assertions.

Normajean: "This is why I’m not handcuffed to some specified law of justification."

It's good that you state that you are not beholden to any understanding of knowledge, because on that I think we can agree. Do you understand that a standard of knowledge you appeared to espouse - RE - appears to skeptics like me as backward and dangerous? In other words, have you considered that RE could be handcuffing you in the same way that pre-Newtonian handcuffed those who failed to recognize that the heavens and earth were governed by the same laws?

Normajean: "Certainly, I’m not handcuffed to the sort of incoherence tied to the title of this post. A little self reflection and humility would do you well."

Are you aware of how common psychological projection appears among apologists when they lecture skeptics like me? May I remind you that you are the one admonishing us to widen our epistemology and accusing us of being handcuffed to incoherence. Such pronouncements and self-congratulation do not come from the humble.

Tony Hoffman said...

MMM: "So, what did He look like? Because you have asked, I'll tell you --- completely void of condemnation, pure unadulterated love, 100% grace..."

When offering a description of what something looks like it's common to use terms that are visual. None of your terms above are visual, which makes it appear that you have chosen to sidestep the question. This vague (I'd even say evasive) reply to a basic question does not bolster the case for RE, and if that is the contender that chooses to challenge scientism I don't see much of a fight.

Chuck said...

"A little self reflection and humility would do you well."

This from the man who assured us that his "inner witness" is certain that not all people have "inner witnesses."

Man, the inanity of christians is priceless.

Chuck said...

MMM,

You said, "Chuck, I thought you were a Christian at one time... curious that you claim that and yet ask me what He looks like. So, what did He look like? Because you have asked, I'll tell you --- completely void of condemnation, pure unadulterated love, 100% grace--- you probably remember now what He looked like, right?? So now I'll ask you --- did your parents, a teacher, a relative or close family friend look like Him? Did you ever look like Him???"

I should have been clearer in my question.

Did he still have a mustache? Because before I became apostate he had a mustache and I told him to shave it off. I said it made him look creepy. Like a child-molestor. I was like, "Jesus H. Christ, Jesus, shave off that creepy mustache."

So, did he?

Chuck said...

MMM,

Also, what's His favorite movie?

Is it still "While You Were Sleeping"?

He and I always disagreed on that one too.

Please tell me He shaved his mustache.

Thanks.

Chuck said...

MMM,

And, does he still like Moose Tracks ice cream?

Thanks.

Tell him I said "hi" but I'm much happier ending our co-dependency.

Scott said...

Normajean wrote: To be clear, all beliefs (from sense, moral, God, take your pick) are formed in the intellect.

While all explanations start out as conjecture, they are not all equal.

I trust my moral, sense data, and God experience—I’m a realist about them all. The fact is that we have mental data experiences, which we cannot get outside of in order to show their veridicality.

Everything is essentially unseen. Even the pages of the Christian Bible are viewed indirectly. Ink (or the lack there off) appears as levels of reflected photons on our retinas, which are converted to electrical impulses, which are decoded by specific areas our brain into letters words and sentences. Despite this fact, there are a number of tools we can use to greatly improve our ability to explain what we observe. And the most successful is science.

From this, they share the same epistemological status.

Based on which criteria? You're assuming all explanations are equal. However, to start, It's clear that we do not accept all explanations as being equivalents. We intuitively know this to be true and act accordingly.

The best we can do is provide reasons why we believe X is true.

Which often does not provide the best explanation.

Any theory can make any prediction. But what justifies a theory is how the theory explains the prediction.

Scott said...

David Deutsch gave a talk about this specific subject at TED last year. You can find it here. He also devotes several chapters to this subject in his book The Fabric of Reality.

One example he uses is The Inquisition's response to Galileo's heliocentric theory.

The Inquisition didn't have a problem with making predictions about where the planets would appear in the sky. Both Galileo and the Church believed in realism. But they did have a problem with Galileo's explanation as to how they could be predicted.

Specifically, since the Inquisition believed that God could have used an infinite number of ways to cause the planets to move in the way they did, they thought Galileo was being arrogant in assuming he knew how God did it. Moreover, the explanation included the earth moving, which they interpreted as contradicting scripture. But, most important, Galileo believed the the universe could be understood in terms of universal, mathematical formulated laws, and that humans could reliably understand the universe though their application. This threatened to undermine the Churches authority.

So they gave Galileo two choices. Recant his heliocentric theory, by publicly reading a statement prepared by the Inquisition, or be executed. However, part of this statement includes an alternate theory which represented the Inquisition's "explanation" on why the planets moved as they did. And this explanation is a perfect illustration of what makes an explanation bad.

To reiterate, the Inquisition's theory make the very same predictions about how the planets would move. In fact the theory even referenced Galileo's heliocentric theory as a way one could make such predictions. However it claimed that the planets only moved in a way that made it appear that heliocentric theory was true, when it reality it was false and the earth did not move.

However, for it to be possible that Galileo's heliocentric theory could accurately predict the movements of planets in the sky but, in reality the earth was still, required the planets to move in extremely complex manner, rather than the circular motions in Galileo's explanation. Furthermore, It required them to move ways that bared little resemblance to how physical objects moved on the earth.

Essentially, the Inquisition's theory was designed to explain away heliocentrism, rather than explain how the planets moved. It created more problems than it solved.

So, while it was true that both theories made the same predictions and, at the time, we didn't have nearly the number of observations available to us now, Galileo's heliocentric theory was justified though argument and explanation.

Tony Hoffman said...

Scott, thanks for the video link and book reference. I'm going to have to check those out.

Scott said...

Deutsch goes on to apply the same criteria to solipsism. While it might be true that we cannot disprove that only we exist though observation, we can show it is indefensible position. Should we take it seriously, rather than use it as an attack against science, it self destructs.

Both solipsism and realism make the same predictions and describe the same things. However, the Solipsist's explanation of the world revolves around explaining why reality only appears to be real, but is supposedly just an illusion, rather than explaining anything on it's own. It is baggage which we can discard because it differs from realism in the way that it include reality, but only as a means to explain it away.

As with the Inquisition's "explanation" of planetary movement, it creates more problems that it solves. It also introduces additional classes of internal processes, which are only designed to "spoil" the prevailing theory of realism.

bfniii said...

"Since science tells us prayer doesn't work then it doesn't work. It tells us virgins do not have babies. It tells us that dead people do not bodily rise from the grave."
those are supernatural issues which is beyond the purview of science and it's incredible that you don't know the difference yet continue to post these kinds of statements on a blog. i suspect your aim is to garner attention to make money, not present a rational case.

"It tells us we evolved."
the scientific case for universal common descent is far from certain.

"It tells us there was no Israelite Exodus from Egypt."
i know you might not be aware of this but, israel finkelstein is just the flavor of the month.

"Christians must denigrate science in order to believe."
this might be news to you but there are scientists who are christian.

Tony Hoffman said...

bfnii: "those are supernatural issues which is beyond the purview of science and it's incredible that you don't know the difference yet continue to post these kinds of statements on a blog."

How do you know when something is a supernatural issue and when it's not? The orbit of the planets was once thought thought to be supernatural, but now, not so much.

bfnii: "i suspect your aim is to garner attention to make money, not present a rational case."

Define rational. If you think rational explanations should include the supernatural, this slightly provocative post is your invitation to make your case and demonstrate that the OP is silly. So far, all the theists have crumpled before they even reached the front line.

OP: "It tells us we evolved."
bfnii: "the scientific case for universal common descent is far from certain."

Universal common descent has its holdouts (every field has its cranks). But denying that we evolved confines you to a much tinier space. Even Behe accepts human evolution because he knows how much more foolish denying it would make him seem.

[unattributed]: ""Christians must denigrate science in order to believe."
bfnii: "this might be news to you but there are scientists who are christian."

And yet you are clearly a Christian who denigrates science because you think it challenges your belief. Your comment here only confirms what you try to refute by citing the trivial fact that some scientists are also Christians.

My question is, Why would you rather place your belief in an ancient book, written by men ignorant of so much we now know, instead of the reality that has been revealed and is still being discovered through so much exciting science?

Scott said...

Bfniiii wrote: those are supernatural issues which is beyond the purview of science and it's incredible that you don't know the difference yet continue to post these kinds of statements on a blog.

Bfniii, people used to account for the phenomenon of lighting using God's supernatural powers. IE. when a bolt of lighting struck, this was an act of God. But, due to a number of discoveries by science, we now know that it is explained by a natural process. Right?

Is it somehow "wrong" of science say that lighting isn't really caused by God? Would stating that lighting is the result of a specific natural process somehow be "beyond the purview of science?"

My guess is that It is only when the phenomenon being explained is also accounted for by YOUR religious beliefs do you complain that science is overstepped it's bounds.

To use an analogy, imagine you and I drive the same make, model and color of car, which happens to be parked in the same parking lot. Each of us walks up to the same parking space, at exactly the same time, believing the car they see parked there is their own. As we each reach for the door handle, both of us claim, "This is my car."

Here we have a dilemma. Since we both own the same make, model and color, both of us interpret the car as being their own. We both claim we are the real owner, while this other is mistaken.

Now, when I say that I'm the owner, and that it's you who is mistaken, does this mean I've somehow overstepped my bounds? Is it somehow my fault that we both happened to walk up to the same car and claim it as our own? Of course not. That you reach the conclusion this particular car is yours is NOT my problem.

In the same way, just because some religious group walks up and claims a specific phenomena has a supernatural cause, this in no way means that phenomena must "beyond the purview of science."

Any religious group could make a similar claim that some other phenomena had a supernatural cause. Does this automatically make exclude it from scientific scrutiny? Or is it only culturally accepted claims that should have special privileges?

bfniii said...

"How do you know when something is a supernatural issue and when it's not? The orbit of the planets was once thought thought to be supernatural, but now, not so much."
you're right in the sense that everything could ultimately be supernatural. for example, why is there something rather than nothing?

as far as the challenge, science doesn't even pretend to answer all questions and i'm pretty sure you're aware of that. yet, we know these things exist. so it seems that relying only on science is a bit incomplete.

"And yet you are clearly a Christian who denigrates science because you think it challenges your belief."
i was wondering how long it would take for someone to equate christian with anti-science. as i said, there are scientists who are christians. not all christians see science as a threat to christianity.

"Why would you rather place your belief in an ancient book, written by men ignorant of so much we now know, instead of the reality that has been revealed and is still being discovered through so much exciting science?"
1. science isn't without it's flaws so it's at most, no better than any other belief system.
2. science doesn't pretend to answer all the questions of the universe so why rely solely on it?
3. scientific fact changes over time. it's a moving target. relying on it solely is tenuous for that reason.
4. christians don't rely solely on the Bible. you're creating a false dilemma.

science is fantastic and wonderful and serves many great purposes for us. however, it's not the ultimate authority and i'm shocked there are still people who have been misled into thinking that it is.

Tony Hoffman said...

bfnii,

My comments to your last are below:

Me: "How do you know when something is a supernatural issue and when it's not? The orbit of the planets was once thought thought to be supernatural, but now, not so much."
bfnii: “you're right in the sense that everything could ultimately be supernatural. for example, why is there something rather than nothing?

as far as the challenge, science doesn't even pretend to answer all questions and i'm pretty sure you're aware of that. yet, we know these things exist. so it seems that relying only on science is a bit incomplete.”

This does not answer the question. It appears that you want to say science explains nothing because it does not explain ultimate questions. Can you clarify your position on how we should determine whether or not a question is scientific or metaphysical?

Me: “"And yet you are clearly a Christian who denigrates science because you think it challenges your belief."”
bfnii: “i was wondering how long it would take for someone to equate christian with anti-science. as i said, there are scientists who are christians. not all christians see science as a threat to christianity.”

It would be foolish to deny the anti-scientific positions of some Christians, (motivated by their understanding of revelation) in the past and today. (It would also be foolish to deny the contributions of Christian scientists.)

Why do you consider common descent an open question. I’ll guess it’s because you believe man is God’s special creation, as it says in the Bible. Science indicates common descent, the Bible says special creation. Your position appears to be against the scientific consensus, and I think anti-science (because in science we don’t get to pick and choose based on non-scientific reasons) is then an accurate description of your position. If you were waiting for someone to equate your position with anti-science you were only waiting for an accurate conclusion. If the shoe fits and all that.

bfnii: 1. “science isn't without it's flaws so it's at most, no better than any other belief system.”

What a fallacious thing to say – that because something isn’t perfect, it’s equivalent to anything else that isn’t perfect. Science is about probabilities, not absolute certainty. Science is more reliable than other belief systems, so it is better than other beliefs systems. This is so obvious it shouldn’t need mentioning.

bfnii: “2. science doesn't pretend to answer all the questions of the universe so why rely solely on it?”

This is a good point, and one that I think you, or any other theist here, should try to explain. I think that you are not directly challenging the OP, though, in that I read the OP to mean that we should only accept reality as science describes it, not how descriptions achieved through non-scientific processes do.

bfnii:3. “scientific fact changes over time. it's a moving target. relying on it solely is tenuous for that reason.

Actually, I think this is just wrong. Isaac Asimov does a much better job of debunking this one than I ever could. You should, if nothing else, please read this:

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

4. christians don't rely solely on the Bible. you're creating a false dilemma.

The claim is that Christians pick what science they choose to believe based on their understanding of the Bible. If there’s no conflict, they choose science. (Why wouldn’t they.) If there is a conflict, they sometimes choose the Bible. This is foolishness that was recognized by Thomas Aquinas, but a great many Christians persist.

To be clear, I believe the OP states what should be obvious – when there is a conflict between Science and Scripture, science wins. Hands down.

If you disagree, you need to provide explanations that aren’t so obviously misguided or fallacious, as I tried to describe above.

bfniii said...

"It appears that you want to say science explains nothing because it does not explain ultimate questions."
what i meant was that science explains many wonderful things but, it has a limit. all scientists know this. given that, it's perplexing why people think a naturalistic worldview is adequate.

"Science indicates common descent"
no, it doesn't. this is a common fallacy among naturalists. science has shown us that some forms of evolution happen but, universal common descent is an extrapolation that is less than certain.

"the Bible says special creation."
both evolution and special creation can be true without necessitating a change to the Bible.

"What a fallacious thing to say – that because something isn’t perfect, it’s equivalent to anything else that isn’t perfect."
i didn't say equivalent.

"Science is more reliable than other belief systems"
we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

"we should only accept reality as science describes it, not how descriptions achieved through non-scientific processes do."
and when scientists disagree? what about when science reaches it's limit and there are still unanswered questions? what do we turn to? also, why are you assuming that non-scientific things are necessarily irrational?

"Isaac Asimov does a much better job of debunking this one than I ever could."
regardless of the degree, there are still questions that perplex science and science does in fact get things wrong even in this age. in case you're not aware, atomic physicists and quantum physicists don't always get along academically. their views of scientific fact often conflict with each other. as if that weren't bad enough, enter the string theorists

"Christians pick what science they choose to believe based on their understanding of the Bible."
not all christians are guilty of this

"when there is a conflict between Science and Scripture, science wins. Hands down."
funny. for many, many years, science told us there was no evidence of the hittites, pontius pilate or belshazzar. i have also already pointed out that scientists don't always agree on method or conclusions.

Scott said...

Bfniii said what i meant was that science explains many wonderful things but, it has a limit. all scientists know this. given that, it's perplexing why people think a naturalistic worldview is adequate.

Since when is "I don't know" inadequate? For example, I'm guessing you do not assume a supernatural cause is responsible for all unsolved murders. We cannot rule out that this is indeed the case, yet I have yet to see a Christian advocate it because "I don't know" is an inadequate answer.

Again, Does any claim of supernatural cause automatically exclude something it from scientific scrutiny? Or is it only culturally accepted claims that should have special privileges?

no, it doesn't. this is a common fallacy among naturalists. science has shown us that some forms of evolution happen but, universal common descent is an extrapolation that is less than certain.

Everything starts out as conjecture. Despite this fact, the theory of common decent is the best explanation given what we observe and alternate explanations. One example is the discovery that 2nd chromosome in humans is essentially identical to the fusion of two primate chromosomes. You have to assume that God made it look like common decent is true while it was really false, to fool us. This is a good example of a bad explanation.

both evolution and special creation can be true without necessitating a change to the Bible.

What do you mean by "necessitating a change?" Your statement seems to indicate the Bible is would be synonymous with "truth" in the first place.

and when scientists disagree? what about when science reaches it's limit and there are still unanswered questions? what do we turn to?

Again, what is inadequate about saying "I don't know?"

Tony Hoffman said...


B: “what i meant was that science explains many wonderful things but, it has a limit. all scientists know this. given that, it's perplexing why people think a naturalistic worldview is adequate.”


You mean that it perplexes you. I am perplexed that people would think a book that has consistently demonstrated that it has only a bronze age understanding of the world can better explain anything than we can today.


Me: "Science indicates common descent"

B: no, it doesn't. this is a common fallacy among naturalists. science has shown us that some forms of evolution happen but, universal common descent is an extrapolation that is less than certain.


Indicates = extrapolation that is less than (100%) certain. So, yes it does.


Me: "the Bible says special creation."

B: both evolution and special creation can be true without necessitating a change to the Bible.


You are free to amend your interpretation of the Bible to accommodate science, as have all intelligent Christians through to the present. But I know many Christians for whom the evolutionary descent of man is a deal-breaker for their faith.


Me: "What a fallacious thing to say – that because something isn’t perfect, it’s equivalent to anything else that isn’t perfect."

B: i didn't say equivalent.


You didn’t say equivalent, but you said this: “bfnii: 1. “science isn't without it's flaws so it's at most, no better than any other belief system.”

The fallacious reasoning you employed above stands there nakedly for you to disavow (and try to gain some credibility), but instead you choose to equivocate. Equivocation is common among those who feel compelled to hide from the truth.

Tony Hoffman said...


Me: "Science is more reliable than other belief systems"

B: we'll have to agree to disagree on this.


By disagreeing with me above, you understand that this means you feel think that there is no other belief system that is inferior to science, such as the belief system of the Aztecs, or scientologists, or Alchemists, etc.. You show an inability to think using probabilities.


B: “regardless of the degree, there are still questions that perplex science and science does in fact get things wrong even in this age. in case you're not aware, atomic physicists and quantum physicists don't always get along academically. their views of scientific fact often conflict with each other. as if that weren't bad enough, enter the string theorists”


You demonstrate a casual use of language and a dilettantish understanding of science. You should look up “scientific fact” on Wikipedia. Scientists don’t disagree on scientific facts, they disagree on the explanations for these facts. That is why Behe can’t deny Evolution (a scientific fact) but does deny the mechanisms behind it.

It is a typical creationist red herring to suggest that disagreement among scientists about explanations means that we are foolish to accept the conclusions of science. Did you even read the Asimov article I linked to?


Me: "Christians pick what science they choose to believe based on their understanding of the Bible."

B: not all christians are guilty of this


True. But some do. You appear to be among them.


Me: "when there is a conflict between Science and Scripture, science wins. Hands down."

B: “funny. for many, many years, science told us there was no evidence of the hittites, pontius pilate or belshazzar.”


If there’s no evidence, there’s no evidence. If there is, there is. Like I said above, you should try to be more precise in your use of language and your understanding of science.


B: “i have also already pointed out that scientists don't always agree on method or conclusions.”


No, scientists agree on the method – i.e., the scientific method, and methodological materialism. On this they are in universal agreement, and it is precisely (and only) that that makes them scientists.

Yes, scientists disagree about conclusions (explanations). Always have, always will. Unlike Christians, they have a reliable method for resolving these disagreements. Hence, the OP.

bfniii said...

"Since when is "I don't know" inadequate?"
When it can’t help us solve issues of morality, for example.

"Again, Does any claim of supernatural cause automatically exclude something it from scientific scrutiny?"
You are conflating the "how" with the "why". Science can explain the "how" of a great many things. The "why" question persists despite some people here ignoring it.

"the theory of common decent is the best explanation given what we observe and alternate explanations."
This is not entirely true. It’s merely what the majority believes but, as we all know, the majority can be wrong. In this case, the majority may eventually be right.

"One example is the discovery that 2nd chromosome in humans is essentially identical to the fusion of two primate chromosomes. You have to assume that God made it look like common decent is true while it was really false, to fool us. This is a good example of a bad explanation."
Ptolemaic cosmology or the geocentric model led people to believe that the earth was the center of the universe. The suggestion of the heliocentric model caused people to ask why would God deceive us? the observations suggested that the earth is at the center. It wasn’t until the discovery of the telescope that better observations were available. To the geocentrists, the heliocentric model looked like a bad explanation just as common descent might look good to us now. none of that made God a liar. none of it made the claims of christianity false.

"What do you mean by "necessitating a change?"
Some people here imply that if universal common descent is true, the Bible is false.

"Again, what is inadequate about saying "I don't know?"
In matters of science, nothing is wrong with that.

bfniii said...

"You mean that it perplexes you."
No, I mean that even scientists are confounded frequently. Therefore, relying on them as the highest authority is tenuous at best

"I am perplexed that people would think a book that has consistently demonstrated that it has only a bronze age understanding of the world can better explain anything than we can today."
From the perspective of the people reading the book (observations with the naked eye), they accurately recorded the world around them. Is there something wrong with that?

"You didn’t say equivalent, but you said this: “bfnii: 1. “science isn't without it's flaws so it's at most, no better than any other belief system.”"
I was responding to the idea that naturalism/non-theism is the best worldview. Since it’s based on scientific understanding and science itself is flawed and even subjective at times, naturalism/non-theism is certainly no better than any other worldview and in some cases, worse.

bfniii said...

"You demonstrate a casual use of language and a dilettantish understanding of science. You should look up “scientific fact” on Wikipedia. Scientists don’t disagree on scientific facts, they disagree on the explanations for these facts. That is why Behe can’t deny Evolution (a scientific fact) but does deny the mechanisms behind it."
I don’t disagree with these statements and I’m not sure how my posts reflect something different

"It is a typical creationist red herring to suggest that disagreement among scientists about explanations means that we are foolish to accept the conclusions of science. Did you even read the Asimov article I linked to?"
I never said accepting scientific conclusions was foolish. I have said that relying on science as the highest authority is a flawed, incomplete worldview. I’ve even gotten some agreement from non-theists on this point

"True. But some do. You appear to be among them."
let me assure you, I am not and I know plenty of Christians who feel the same. However, I understand your need to paint all Christians as dogmatic and ignorant because it makes a convenient strawman. I do understand the difference between the data and the conclusions drawn from the data

"No, scientists agree on the method – i.e., the scientific method, and methodological materialism. On this they are in universal agreement, and it is precisely (and only) that that makes them scientists."
I’m not sure this is accurate. First, there really isn’t one ubiquitous scientific method. There are scientific methods just like there are scientific disciplines. I’m not suggesting they are in conflict. I’m just saying there is more than one method. Second, if you’ve studied philosophy of science, then you know that not all scientists agree on which methods to use when, the degree to which they are employed, etc. Incidentally, I’m not suggesting any of this is unhealthy. Actually, the process works quite well for us. however, it’s important to understand the limitations of science as a whole.

"Yes, scientists disagree about conclusions (explanations). Always have, always will. Unlike Christians, they have a reliable method for resolving these disagreements. Hence, the OP."
Again, you’re painting a picture of science that’s probably a little more rosy than it really is. the scientists I know agree that all observation is theory laden.

Scott said...

Scott wrote: "Since when is "I don't know" inadequate?"

Bfniii wrote: When it can’t help us solve issues of morality, for example.

You've told me when you think "I don't know " is inadequate, but not "why" it's inadequate. Surely, "I don't know" can't help us solve issues in a number of situations. Why is it inadequate in moral situations, but not others?

"I don't know" is inadequate in the case of moral questions because….?

"Again, Does any claim of supernatural cause automatically exclude something it from scientific scrutiny?"

You are conflating the "how" with the "why". Science can explain the "how" of a great many things. The "why" question persists despite some people here ignoring it.

Bfniii, claims about the supernatural are similar to claims of sophism or a theory that the earth is surround by a giant and elaborate planetarium which merely simulates the vast universe we observe - including capturing astronauts and returning them with implanted memories and fake moon rocks. While each is logically possible, they all draw an arbitrary boundary beyond which, they claim, human reasoning has no access. (or by which problem solving can no longer bring about understanding)

Sophism claims this boundary falls at the brain, self or or soul. Giant Planetarium theorists, claims this boundary falls at some point not far beyond the earth's orbit. Theists (among other supernaturalists) claim this boundary exists with the supposed creation of nature though the existence of some contra-natural realm - the exact location of which varies depending on the particular theology they subscribe to.

Specifically, it seems you think the "how" is contained inside this boundary and the "why" can only exist outside it. I'm simply trying to illustrate that this boundary appears to be arbitrarily set as a means to give you an unlimited number of answers to "why" questions you want answered.

Want an answer to a specific question? Claim it exists outside the boundary so "I don't know" isn't required.

"the theory of common decent is the best explanation given what we observe and alternate explanations."

This is not entirely true. It’s merely what the majority believes but, as we all know, the majority can be wrong. In this case, the majority may eventually be right.

How can it be mostly true, but merely what the majority believes?

Scott said...

Ptolemaic cosmology or the geocentric model led people to believe that the earth was the center of the universe.

It wasn’t until the discovery of the telescope that better observations were available.

You're made a flawed analogy.

While it would be a stretch, we could compare Charles Darwin's theory of common decent with Galileo's heliocentric theory. Both Darwin and Galileo hesitated to publish their theories because they seemed to contradict our intuitions. However, Darwin published his theory 150 years ago. While the details of the mechanism behind evolution has changed since then, the overall theory has withstood overwhelming amount of criticism and scientific testing.

We discovered common decent's "telescope" long ago, and as far as we can "see", it still appears that God either intentionally made it look like common decent was true, when it was false, or it really is true. The fusion of human chromosome #2 is only one of such "distant discoveries" which justifies the theory.

None of that made God a liar. none of it made the claims of christianity false.

But this is impossible by design - because you assert the "claims of Christianity" exist outside a supernatural boundary.

Just as the sophist says, arguing with a student if sophism is true or not, wouldn't make sophism false. Just as a Giant Planetarium theorist says images of gravitational lensing caused by massive objects, such as black holes or quasars, can't invalidate their theory either.

The claims of Christianity isn't really the issue here. The real question is if said boundary exits and falls where you claim it does.

bfniii said...

scott,

"You've told me when you think "I don't know " is inadequate, but not "why" it's inadequate."
because when people are trying to resolve a moral issue such as assisted suicide or abortion, we need something that science can't provide. that's a pretty big reason why.

"claims about the supernatural are similar to claims of sophism"
there are some things we can know. burying our head in the sand under the pretense of "i don't know" is not a helpful, sane, rational solution for mankind. it's just intellectual surrender.

"How can it be mostly true, but merely what the majority believes?"
as i said, in some cases the majority is right. in some cases, not. using the majority (mainstream science, for example) as a standard for truth is not always a forthcoming enterprise

bfniii said...

"While the details of the mechanism behind evolution has changed since then, the overall theory has withstood overwhelming amount of criticism and scientific testing."
evolution, yes. universal common descent, no.

"We discovered common decent's "telescope" long ago, and as far as we can "see", it still appears that God either intentionally made it look like common decent was true, when it was false, or it really is true."
UCD does not look true to all scientists.

"The fusion of human chromosome #2 is only one of such "distant discoveries" which justifies the theory."
i am not opposed to the idea of UCD. however, what you are saying is simply based on misconceptions that you have been fed by the mainstream. the "evidence" you cite might serve as substantiation to a degree but, UCD is still far from a scientific fact.

"But this is impossible by design - because you assert the "claims of Christianity" exist outside a supernatural boundary."
i don't recall making such a statement. even for the things that are solely supernatural, they can still be rational.

Scott said...

I wrote: "You've told me when you think "I don't know " is inadequate [in the case of morality], but not "why" it's inadequate."

Bfniii wrote: because when people are trying to resolve a moral issue such as assisted suicide or abortion, we need something that science can't provide. that's a pretty big reason why.

Bfniii,

So, to be clear, "I don't know." is inadequate if a question cannot be answered scientifically? However, I don't think this really describes your position. Nor is it clear what it means to say something cannot be "answered" scientifically.

For example, there are many things which science cannot tell us for which you likely think "I don't know." is adequate, such as unsolved murder cases. Nor is it clear when and why you are justified to make the leap that "I do know." by appealing to a supernatural entities.

How about the treatment of cancer? Is "I don't know," an inadequate answer for a cure for cancer? Wouldn't someone with cancer need an answer that science cannot provide? However, until we do have a cure, time doesn't stop. We must make choices and take actions without the reassurance of "I do know." All we can do is best we can with information we do have.

Perhaps you mean, since science could eventually provided a cure for cancer "I don't know." is adequate. However, in regards to questions which science could never answer, "I don't know." is inadequate. But why are these questions any different to the point of justifying an appeal to the supernatural? Nor is it clear how do you decide which questions cannot be answered scientifically?

How do you know this assumption is not based on ignorance?

For example, you might conclude the question, "Do people have supernatural souls?" is a question that science cannot answer. However, there are two billion people effected by mental disorders and which we are forced to say "I don't know" regarding a cure.

In an attempt to better understand how the human brain works, we've built working single neo-cortical column simulation using supercomputers. And it works just like the biological counterpart. When the technology becomes available, we'll eventually be able to scale this simulation to a human brain to create effective treatments. But to do this we have to understand how the brain works in detail.

One theory of human perception is that the brain builds a universe around us like a bubble. This has been a question of philosophical discussions and speculation for thousands of years. But should we be able to create a full-scale simulation of a human brain, we can actually reach definitive answers to these questions.

Furthermore, if this simulation were to create a working brain, we may be able to explain, in detail, the features that you claim are actually due to the existence of a supernatural "soul."

Please see Henry Markram's talk at TED for more information about this research.

So, I'm still unclear as why lack of an answer by science justifies an appeal to the supernatural, to reach the assumption "I do know."

Scott said...

Bfniii,

The question is if we are justified in accepting the theory of universal common decent over rival theories, including "God did it." The answer to this question is "yes."

Given the amount of criticism, research and testing, universal common decent could have been found untenable long ago. And compared to rival theories, UCD provides the best explanation to what we observe.

That UDC may not look true to each and every scientist doesn't change this.

I wrote: "The fusion of human chromosome #2 is only one of such "distant discoveries" which justifies the theory."

however, what you are saying is simply based on misconceptions that you have been fed by the mainstream. the "evidence" you cite might serve as substantiation to a degree but, UCD is still far from a scientific fact.

I'm quite aware of the limitations of the this discovery. However, UCD predicted we should find a fused chromosome in humans which consists of two primate chromosomes - including duplicate but inactive telomeres where they did not belong - before it was actually discovered. If it was absent, it would have been a significant blow to UCD. Yet, it was found as predicted. UCD is the best explanation of this discovery.

We always start out with conjecture. We cannot rely on induction alone. This is what I referred to when I meant when we were justified in accepting the theory of UCD.

I wrote: But this is impossible by design - because you assert the "claims of Christianity" exist outside a supernatural boundary."

Bfniiii wrote: i don't recall making such a statement. even for the things that are solely supernatural, they can still be rational.

If you ask someone which specific phenomena is has a supernatural cause, it depends on who you ask and when you asked them. And this reflects an individuals claim of where the the boundary beyond which human reasoning supposedly cannot provide an explanation or by which problem solving cannot provided further explanations.

For example, one Christian who posts here at DC claims it's impossible for great apes and human beings to have shared a common ancestor as this would mean God lied. And his God is not a liar! In his case, the boundary is defined much closer.

On the other hand, it's likely that you think human beings have a supernatural "soul", to which our understanding cannot advance beyond "God did it." Should this be the case, your boundary just happens to extend further. But the boundary still implied none the less.