"Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2015, 08:03 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
Hey Tommy, so... how do you know Goddidit? Since you've excluded science, by what other method do you conclude that there's someone there, other than wishful thinking?

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
23-07-2015, 08:08 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 06:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 06:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you cannot validly reverse the argument. There is no evidence of the supernatural, so it is not a logical choice.

By what methodology would you be able to verify supernatural evidence? You can't do so with methodological naturalism (the scientific method), since this methodology can only provide possible naturalistic explanations for it, even if in fact truly was supernatural.

If it happens that all natural mechanisms are ruled out, all that would be left would be the supernatural.

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
23-07-2015, 08:13 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 08:03 AM)morondog Wrote:  Hey Tommy, so... how do you know Goddidit? Since you've excluded science, by what other method do you conclude that there's someone there, other than wishful thinking?

By what method do you conclude that this was through a series of physical accidents?

How do you know physically accidents are the cause of all this?

Even if you remove the God question, as some buddhist and such do, the question would still be one about whether one believes it all just a serious of uncanny coincidences, or not. That whether when looking at a man who won a million dollar lottery three times straight, whether we'd be inclined to believe it was just a coincidence, or suggesting intentionality.

Many theists would say the link between intentionality and theism, is a stones throw away, but some atheists might argue otherwise. But this is a point, I'm not very interested in arguing, since it involves going over historical definitions and understanding of God, beyond just the sort of concepts atheists seem to imply by the term.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 08:15 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 07:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 06:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  "A series of physical accidents" is a straw man version of evolution at the molecular level. You are utterly missing cumulative change. Read a book.


I think you need to read a book. Your gripes about the term "accidents", only helps to reveal to me, that at some level you find materialism just as absurd as I do, and want to erase the word "accident" from being used here to conceal your own dissonance. My suggestion is to own the word, or risk making your case look even weaker. And notice I didn't say anything exclusively in regards to evolution either. I subscribe to evolution as well, and would classify as a theistic evolutionist.

I remember listening to Daniel Dennett's desire to reclaim the word design, what motivated his desire to do this, is likely quite similar to your desire to scrub the word "accident".

Yet another straw man? I am not disowning the word 'accident', merely pointing out that you do not understand the power of cumulative change.

And Dennett's use of the word 'design' is precisely defined as resulting from mindless mechanisms. He is reclaiming it from its supernatural use.

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
23-07-2015, 08:19 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 07:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 07:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  You draw a strawman of "accidents" driving evolution to characature ordinary and well proven physical processes then claim victory when you strawman is called out while simultaneously arguing that atheists are really secret believers.

You’ve created a strawman by claiming that I stated “evolution is driven by accidents”.

I could just as easily define the position as: Through a series of physical accidents, matter was able to organize itself in such a way to produce a system, with non-random components, that allowed matter to organize even further, and produce conscious, self-aware creatures, with creative and moral capacities, and the ability to trace it's own origins, be a way for the universe to be aware of itself. Not by any plan, or intention, not by any foresight, or inevitability, but through a series of flukes.

Quote:You define "supernatural" and "science" such that they must be non overlapping magisteria, yet you seem to believe in a supernatural that interacts with the real world with natural effects that science certainly can interrogate

Science can interrogate supernatural claims, but can only provide possible naturalistic explanations for it, or at the very least claim that the naturalistic explanations are unknown at this point. It can't declare that a supernatural claim is false, since by design it's incapable of doing that. Those naturalistic explanations might even make one doubt their supernatural beliefs, or abandon them. But it would be because people find one explanation more convincing than it’s alternatives.

Science is methodological, not ontological. To make it ontological is not science, but scientism. And i think atheists and theists should be very weary of conflating the two.

But instead of using the neutral language of probability, you insist on using emotionally loaded words like 'accident' and 'fluke'.

Your credibility ebbs with every post like that.

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
23-07-2015, 08:20 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 08:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  If it happens that all natural mechanisms are ruled out, all that would be left would be the supernatural.

What would mean to rule out a naturalistic explanation? Would it mean ruling it out as a possibility all together, even a remote one? Or just by deeming it unlikely, though still possible?

Would it mean to rule it out in an absolute sense?

Let's say we discover that in our DNA, was an engraving saying "made by GOD"? How would you rule out an elaborate prank, with unknown mechanism, and naturalistic causes?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 08:28 AM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2015 08:37 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 08:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  But instead of using the neutral language of probability, you insist on using emotionally loaded words like 'accident' and 'fluke'.

It's your emotions. There nothing emotional about claiming that a man drawing a royal flush in a card game, was just a fluke. If you saying that it's "emotional" for you, than that that begs the question as to why it provokes your emotions? I would be curious to know why. If you were emotional about suggesting this was a fluke in the card game, that would suggest to me that you have trouble accepting that it was a fluke, and if you also deny that it was rigged in some way, there's a problem here, but it's not mine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 08:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 08:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  If it happens that all natural mechanisms are ruled out, all that would be left would be the supernatural.

What would mean to rule out a naturalistic explanation? Would it mean ruling it out as a possibility all together, even a remote one? Or just by deeming it unlikely, though still possible?

Would it mean to rule it out in an absolute sense?

Let's say we discover that in our DNA, was an engraving saying "made by GOD"? How would you rule out an elaborate prank, with unknown mechanism, and naturalistic causes?

Keep it simpler: if we witness a chemical reaction where the energies cannot be accounted for, then we could consider the 'supernatural'.

But the telling point was already made: if something is 'supernatural' but interacts with the natural world, then its effects would be detectable and measurable.

And if it interacts with the natural world, it is arguably natural - not supernatural.

And if it is truly supernatural and does not interact with the natural world, then it is indistinguishable from the non-existent.

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
23-07-2015, 08:31 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 08:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 08:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  But instead of using the neutral language of probability, you insist on using emotionally loaded words like 'accident' and 'fluke'.

It's your emotions. There nothing emotional about claiming that a man drawing a royal flush in a card game, was just a fluke. If you saying that it's "emotional" for you, than that that begs the question as to why it provokes your emotions? I would be curious to know why.

Words have connotations. Fluke: unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-07-2015, 08:51 AM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2015 09:02 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 08:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  But instead of using the neutral language of probability, you insist on using emotionally loaded words like 'accident' and 'fluke'.

Your credibility ebbs with every post like that.

Accidents and fluke are not words chosen by me for emotional reason, but rather because they serve as antonyms for suggestions of intentionality,

Also it helps to resolve some questions that don't easily break down into probability, such as what's the likelihood that matter would have all the necessary ingredients to organize itself in such a way that it produces conscious, self-aware creatures, with creative and moral capacities, and the ability to trace it's own origins, be a way for matter to be aware of itself?

The answer would be it just does, it just did. It didn't have to, but it did. And lucky for us it just did, or we wouldn't be here at all. The nothingness that gave birth to those initial sparks, didn't have to, it just did. Nothing intentional about it, no design even at some formulaic level involved. By a series of fortuitous accidents, it was able to organize itself in such a way on this planet that we find ourselves on, a wink or two differently and it might not have been the case at all.

Quote:"Words have connotations. Fluke: unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.

It's also the antonym for design and plan.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: