"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, 08:57 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 08:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 06:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

What do we count as natural mechanisms anyway? What is not technically a natural mechanism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 09:06 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 08:57 AM)Sam Polter 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 do we count as natural mechanisms anyway? What is not technically a natural mechanism

Tommy's just butthurt 'cos there's no evidence for Christianity being true, all he's got is some book and a lot of twisting to explain why praying doesn't cure diseases but medicine does.

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, 09:08 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 08:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Well, that just rules out supernatural interactions by fiat, lol. And in fact agrees with my earlier point, that the only thing science can support or verify are natural explanations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 09:18 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 09:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  Tommy's just butthurt 'cos there's no evidence for Christianity being true, all he's got is some book and a lot of twisting to explain why praying doesn't cure diseases but medicine does.

I actually don't think any of this really serves as an argument for Christianity. If anything it might serve to suggest why many individuals not just myself, and not necessarily even believers, like Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers Tom Stoppard, who feel more comfortable classifying themselves as atheists still, are not particularly persuaded by materialism/ontological naturalism.

These arguments might underly some arguments that many Christians make as well, but there's nothing exclusively Christian about it, or even exclusively theistic about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 09:21 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 08:51 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'.

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.

It is not the antonym, it is an antonym.

I suggest you use "undesigned", "chance occurrence", "random event", "low-probability event", or some such.

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, 09:23 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 09:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 08:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Well, that just rules out supernatural interactions by fiat, lol. And in fact agrees with my earlier point, that the only thing science can support or verify are natural explanations.

In that case, there can be no supernatural explanations for events or effects in the natural world.

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, 09:26 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 09:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  I suggest you use "undesigned", "chance occurrence", "random event", "low-probability event", or some such.

So which aspects of definition of the "word" fluke do you take issue with?

" Fluke: unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck."

Is it the unlikely part? which to me means the same as "low-probability event".?

Or is it more the "surprising" and "luck" portion you take offense to?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 09:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 09:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  Tommy's just butthurt 'cos there's no evidence for Christianity being true, all he's got is some book and a lot of twisting to explain why praying doesn't cure diseases but medicine does.

I actually don't think any of this really serves as an argument for Christianity. If anything it might serve to suggest why many individuals not just myself, and not necessarily even believers, like Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers Tom Stoppard, who feel more comfortable classifying themselves as atheists still, are not particularly persuaded by materialism/ontological naturalism.

These arguments might underly some arguments that many Christians make as well, but there's nothing exclusively Christian about it, or even exclusively theistic about it.

Their arguments are essentially argument from incredulity. They don't see how mind can emerge from brain. Chalmers is some kind of dualist.

And do you mean Stoppard the playwright?

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, 09:32 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 09:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  In that case, there can be no supernatural explanations for events or effects in the natural world.

That's fine by me, I could quibble over this. But since I hardly ever use the word "supernatural", because the line in which something would be deemed supernatural vs natural, seems quite vague to me, I see no reason to argue the point.

For a while teleology, the moral law, intrinsic purposes and meanings, were all a part of what was commonly deemed a part of the natural order. If we can reincorporate them in such a way today, than I take no issue with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 09:42 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 09:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 09:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I actually don't think any of this really serves as an argument for Christianity. If anything it might serve to suggest why many individuals not just myself, and not necessarily even believers, like Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers Tom Stoppard, who feel more comfortable classifying themselves as atheists still, are not particularly persuaded by materialism/ontological naturalism.

These arguments might underly some arguments that many Christians make as well, but there's nothing exclusively Christian about it, or even exclusively theistic about it.

Their arguments are essentially argument from incredulity. They don't see how mind can emerge from brain. Chalmers is some kind of dualist.

And do you mean Stoppard the playwright?

All three will likely classify as a dualist, and yes I did mean Stoppard the playwright, but they also see themselves as unbelievers as well.

What makes the individuals interesting for me is that they've created a sort of corner, where they exist on one end, and the other end is occupied by Alex Rosenberg, who's basically Daniel Dennett but with a spine. Both corners are offensive to many atheists, who try to find some vague middle ground between the two, without recognizing how slippery the ground underneath them is. For theists this all is very interesting, for atheists it's likely all very irritating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: