Breaking the spell?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-04-2015, 06:47 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

- Harvard population biologist Richard Lewontin—an atheist who thinks matter is all there is

-Budziszewski, J (2011-02-16). What We Cant Not Know (p. 66). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 07:19 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
... Woo. Tomasia you really go to great lengths...

It's not about creating a framework that automatically excludes the supernatural. It's that science *works*. That's *all*. No theory as of yet has ever *required* some mystic woo-woo God. We *know* how atoms work, more or less, we *know* how the body works, more or less - we have a consistent and logical theory for how the universe was created, which more investigation only confirms.

If our theories sans fuck-random mystic woo *didn't* work, then you could start postulating something.

How about if prayer worked? Wouldn't that lend some credibility to religion? But it *doesn't*. So eat a dick.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
23-04-2015, 07:30 AM (This post was last modified: 23-04-2015 07:54 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 07:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  ... Woo. Tomasia you really go to great lengths...

It's not about creating a framework that automatically excludes the supernatural. It's that science *works*. That's *all*. No theory as of yet has ever *required* some mystic woo-woo God. We *know* how atoms work, more or less, we *know* how the body works, more or less - we have a consistent and logical theory for how the universe was created, which more investigation only confirms.

If our theories sans fuck-random mystic woo *didn't* work, then you could start postulating something.

How about if prayer worked? Wouldn't that lend some credibility to religion? But it *doesn't*. So eat a dick.

Science =/= Materialism. It's reliance on materialism is methodological, rather than ontological.

A theist can also put on the lens of methodological naturalism, come up with the best unguided, unintentional explanations, but he's not obligated in the way that ontological naturalist to accept these explanations as true, no matter how far fetched they may be.

In order for me to accept naturalism, I'd have to accept a variety of things that I find quite unbelievable, and almost absurd, like my moral perceptions rather than being real are merely illusions. That's our existence here is just an uncanny fluke, a universe that unintentionally created a creature capable of being aware of it, capable of creating it's own universes, just out of some blind luck of the draw. This is just common sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
It doesn't particularly help when a variety of highly regarded secular thinkers, have drawn the same conclusions:

“But for a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works. The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes. This is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. “plains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. Perhaps that literature presents the situation with a simplicity and confidence that does not reflect the most sophisticated scientific thought in these areas. But it seems to me that, as it is usually presented, the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of governing assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of common sense.”

Excerpt From: Thomas Nagel. “Mind and Cosmos:” iBooks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 07:59 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 07:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 07:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  ... Woo. Tomasia you really go to great lengths...

It's not about creating a framework that automatically excludes the supernatural. It's that science *works*. That's *all*. No theory as of yet has ever *required* some mystic woo-woo God. We *know* how atoms work, more or less, we *know* how the body works, more or less - we have a consistent and logical theory for how the universe was created, which more investigation only confirms.

If our theories sans fuck-random mystic woo *didn't* work, then you could start postulating something.

How about if prayer worked? Wouldn't that lend some credibility to religion? But it *doesn't*. So eat a dick.

Science =/= Materialism. It's reliance on materialism is methodological, rather than ontological.

A theist can also put on the lens of methodological naturalism, come up with the best unguided, unintentional explanations, but he's not obligated in the way that ontological naturalist to accept these explanations as true, no matter how far fetched they may be.

In order for me to accept naturalism, I'd have to accept of variety of things that I find quite unbelievable, and almost absurd, like my moral perceptions rather than being real are merely illusions. That's our existence here is just an uncanny fluke, a universe that unintentionally created a creature capable of being aware of it, capable of creating it's own universes, just out of some blind luck of the draw. This is just common sense.

Your incredulity is unconvincing.

Our basic moral perceptions are a product of evolution.
Every organism on earth is vastly unlikely, flukes included.

Our intelligence is an evolved trait; evolved traits are not blind luck, they are products of selection. Selection is the sieve that sorts the useful from the useless.

You do not understand the power of evolution and therefore misunderstand the probabilities. Your common sense is not useful here.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
23-04-2015, 08:00 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 07:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It doesn't particularly help when a variety of highly regarded secular thinkers, have drawn the same conclusions:

“But for a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works. The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes. This is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. “plains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. Perhaps that literature presents the situation with a simplicity and confidence that does not reflect the most sophisticated scientific thought in these areas. But it seems to me that, as it is usually presented, the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of governing assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of common sense.”

Excerpt From: Thomas Nagel. “Mind and Cosmos:” iBooks.

He also doesn't appreciate the power of the evolutionary algorithm and lets his 'common sense' lead him astray.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 07:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In order for me to accept naturalism, I'd have to accept a variety of things that I find quite unbelievable, and almost absurd, like my moral perceptions rather than being real are merely illusions. That's our existence here is just an uncanny fluke, a universe that unintentionally created a creature capable of being aware of it, capable of creating it's own universes, just out of some blind luck of the draw. This is just common sense.

You don't understand, therefore it's wrong. Nice reasoning there mate. It's not an uncanny fluke. It's not blind luck. Common sense huh?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 08:26 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 08:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  You don't understand, therefore it's wrong. Nice reasoning there mate. It's not an uncanny fluke. It's not blind luck. Common sense huh?

No, it's not a problem of understanding. I have no problem understanding unbelievable explanations, or even absurd ones. I can also tell when those explanations are actually supported by insurmountable evidence, and are just spun out of idealogical commitments.

If it's not an uncanny fluke than what is it an inevitability? I believe it was inevitable, is that why you believe as well?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 08:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 08:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  You don't understand, therefore it's wrong. Nice reasoning there mate. It's not an uncanny fluke. It's not blind luck. Common sense huh?

No, it's not a problem of understanding. I have no problem understanding unbelievable explanations, or even absurd ones. I can also tell when those explanations are actually supported by insurmountable evidence, and are just spun out of idealogical commitments.

If it's not an uncanny fluke than what is it an inevitability? I believe it was inevitable, is that why you believe as well?

It is neither. No species on earth was inevitable, all are contingent on previous conditions and contingencies.

Why do you think humans were inevitable? There is no evidence to support that idea.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 08:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is neither. No species on earth was inevitable, all are contingent on previous conditions and contingencies.

Why do you think humans were inevitable? There is no evidence to support that idea.

Aren't all uncanny flukes all contingent on previous conditions and contingencies?

I don't get how you can say it wasn't an uncanny fluke, by appealing to previous conditions and contingencies?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: