 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
LuckyStrike
Sea Monkey
Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Valdosta, GA, USA
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:30 am Post subject: Re: SDMD, FFT, nakhash |
 |
|
| SDMD wrote: | | What do you mean with 'secular humanists"? |
Secular humanist: : "HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion (ref.)
Secularism: ": indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations" (ref.)
"Secular humanism" is a secularist emphasis on man being the ultimate focus and standard of things in general, while maintaining skeptical hostility towards traditional religious concepts, especially supernatural concepts. "Secular humanism" does not explicitly reject traditional religious beliefs, but holds that rationality, worldly necessity, and social progress are contrary to traditional religious beliefs. Consequently, because of this generalistic core definition, there are many different variations of "secular humanism."
| SDMD wrote: | | You are mnot one of those who are so ignorant that they believe this is a "God vs Evolution" kind of silliness, are you? |
So, to defend your viewpoint, you are appealing to ad hominem ranting?  Violation of logical empiricism.
Evolutionary theory and God are incompatible concepts. Evolution marginalizes God through methodological naturalism, which presupposes naturalism before and during any scientific inquiry. As a result, God can enter the equation only when a naturalistic explanation of something is missing, as "God of the gaps." But, such an insertion, while compatible, is contrary to the purpose of methodological naturalism. Further, the concept of God working through Evolution is an unnecessary tautology, for the naturalistic explanation is sufficient enough to carry the process through.
In essence, Theistic Evolution tries to reconcile methodological naturalism with ontological supernaturalism. However, if you place primary emphasis on the metaphysical or supernatural, then you take the issue outside of the realm of Science, into the realm of faith. But if you place primary emphasis on methodological naturalism, then you make seeking materialistic explanations superior to the metaphysical or supernatural. Thus, one side, methodological naturalism or the metaphysical, must be made superior to the other in order for a working formula to be generated, otherwise one creates a methodological paradox.
| SDMD wrote: | | I have not seen anybody trying to proof what you claimed. |
| SDMD wrote: | | But.. ? Has anybody ever claimed to have the proof for these things? |
You are appealing to an argument from ignorance to dispute my statement. On other discussion boards, I have had debates with Evolutionists who tried to make this claim. Moreover, those who are intellectually opposed to supernatural concepts must take such a position.
| FFT wrote: | There's an element of genetics to it, no doubt, but primarily it's based on what a person experiences growing up.
No two people grow up identically. |
| FFT wrote: | We don't grow up identically because 1. We are not born the same. 2. We all live differently. 3. We all die differently.
We are different because we all experience different things. |
How do these responses address lone-traveler's questions?
| nakhash wrote: | | Any form of epistemological model that stands up to philosophical scrutiny is difficult to differentiate from Materialism in practice. |
 And how did you come to this conclusion?
| nakhash wrote: | | Satisfaction with ignorance is not a rational replacement for a philosophical argument. Your appeal violates the "absence of proof is not equivalent to proof of absence" appeal you are otherwise making by calling materialist explanations for phenomena into question. |
Hold on a second. How do you determine when "absence of proof equals proof of absence"?
| nakhash wrote: | | I'm basing this more on Spinoza's "substance can only limit like substance"' argument he puts forth in The Ethics,[...] |
To justify metaphysical naturalism, Spinoza advocated "Substance Monism," which described "God" as the sole "substance" that exists. Based on this premise, Spinoza equated "God" and "nature" or "the finite order of things," thereby defining "nature" as an "infinite substance" or "substance of infinite attributes."
| The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote: | IP14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived.
The demonstration of this proposition is exceedingly simple. God exists (by IP11). Since God possesses every attribute (by ID6), if any substance other than God were to exist, it would possess an attribute in common with God. But, since there cannot be two or more substances with a common attribute (by IP5), there can be no substance other than God. God is the one and only substance. |
"Benedict De Spinoza (1632-1677)," under "3. Metaphysics," "a. Substance Monism," "iii. Substance Monism Demonstrated," by The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
| The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote: | EIP5: In Nature there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.
In support of this proposition, Spinoza argues that if two or more substances were to exist they would be differentiated either by a difference in modes or by a difference in attributes. However, they could not be differentiated by a difference in modes, for substances are prior in nature to their modes. Thus, they would have to be differentiated by a difference in attributes. Controversially, Spinoza takes this to entail that no two substances can have exactly the same set of attributes, nor can they have a common attribute. Substances must be entirely dissimilar to one another.
[Bold Emphasis by LuckyStrike] |
"Benedict De Spinoza (1632-1677)," under "3. Metaphysics," "a. Substance Monism," "ii. Preliminary Propositions," by The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Spinoza's reasoning relies on many non-sequitur logical fallacies. While I agree that two substances that share the same set of attributes must be the same, nothing requires that substances that share certain common attribute(s) must be the same. Moreover, the premise that "modes" do not define a substance like "attributes" do, which parallels the Greek philosophical understanding of "substance" and "accidents," does not mean that "modes" cannot be indicative of "attributes" to certain degrees, respectively, thereby not being entirely dichotomous in nature.
| nakhash wrote: | | [...]but you could just as easily see this as an extension of Newton's Third Law of Motion,[...] |
And how does appealing to physical "law" refute the concept of the supernatural? The supernatural, by definition, transcends the natural.
| nakhash wrote: | | No, this is a philosophical argument, and a sound one. |
| nakhash wrote: | | But it's impossible. |
This is nothing but self-affirmation, which relies on the circular logic logical fallacy. Violation of logical empiricism.
| nakhash wrote: | | If you disagree, make a logical argument, based on first principles, for dualism, and then also provide a logical argument that unlike substances can interact, and that this interaction can occur in a unidirectional manner. |
Two topics have been introduced already: What about miracles? What about the aspects of human personality?
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | SDMD wrote: | | Ah, God-of-the-Gaps. When we can't explain it, then it is a miracle. When we later can explain it, then it was just physics after all. |
Hold on a second. What constitutes "an explanation"? |
_________________
1 Peter 3:15 [NIV]
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | while maintaining skeptical hostility towards traditional religious concepts, especially supernatural concepts. |
It is not "skeptical hostility," only "skepticism."
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | So, to defend your viewpoint, you are appealing to ad hominem ranting? Violation of logical empiricism. |
 Let's see how this goes.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Evolutionary theory and God are incompatible concepts. |
I find it hilarious that in response to him asking if you think God and evolution are incompatible, you first label it a personal attack, and then align yourself with it. It's not a character attack if it's true.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Evolution marginalizes God through methodological naturalism, which presupposes naturalism before and during any scientific inquiry. |
Reality marginalizes God, what with its complete lack of evidence for an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present being.
All science presupposes naturalism, as all things which are real must therefore be natural. If ghosts are discovered to be real ( ), we will figure out how they actually come to be. At that point, they are no longer supernatural (imaginary), but natural (real).
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | As a result, God can enter the equation only when a naturalistic explanation of something is missing, as "God of the gaps." |
Agreed.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | But, such an insertion, while compatible, is contrary to the purpose of methodological naturalism. |
Arguably compatible, but agreed.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Further, the concept of God working through Evolution is an unnecessary tautology, for the naturalistic explanation is sufficient enough to carry the process through. |
Agreed.
What on Earth are you even arguing, here? As far as I can tell, you're just explaining how things work? Seriously, I'm curious. What's your stance on this?
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | You are appealing to an argument from ignorance to dispute my statement. On other discussion boards, I have had debates with Evolutionists who tried to make this claim. Moreover, those who are intellectually opposed to supernatural concepts must take such a position. |
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, true. However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, especially when the entity whose existence is in question would leave evidence.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | How do these responses address lone-traveler's questions? |
She asked why people were different. I explained that people are different for purely naturalistic reasons, and that a resort to the supernatural was unnecessary for explanation.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Two topics have been introduced already: What about miracles? What about the aspects of human personality? |
Miracles: easily explained naturally. Parlor tricks, coincidence, and pareidolia.
Human personality: explained by experience.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Hold on a second. What constitutes "an explanation"? |
"Sai Baba is not performing miracles, he is performing parlor tricks."
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuckyStrike
Sea Monkey
Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Valdosta, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:17 am Post subject: Re: FFT |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | It is not "skeptical hostility," only "skepticism." |
The line between "skeptical" and "hostile" is quite blurry. The term "hostile" is included in mainstream definitions of "secular humanism" because a significant portion of the "secular humanist" community expresses skeptical hostility towards traditional religious beliefs. It seems that many "secular humanists" cannot differentiate between academic criticism and offensive criticism. In fact, after reading through many threads on this board, I believe that the term "hostile" describes many posts posted here, but that is an issue for another time.
| FFT wrote: | | I find it hilarious that in response to him asking if you think God and evolution are incompatible, you first label it a personal attack, and then align yourself with it. It's not a character attack if it's true. |
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | SDMD wrote: | | You are mnot one of those who are so ignorant that they believe this is a "God vs Evolution" kind of silliness, are you? |
|
Calling my person "ignorant" and my position "silliness" in an attempt to discredit my viewpoint before debating it qualifies as an ad hominem attack. Violation of logical empiricism upheld.
| FFT wrote: | | Reality marginalizes God, what with its complete lack of evidence for an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present being. |
So you believe that God is not real? What about this:
| FFT wrote: | | salvation12288 wrote: | | No, with how complicated this world is you have to believe that there is a God. |
Right, and that's why I believe in God. Oh, wait. Oops again. |
Source Thread: "Evolution is a fact? Questions..", Page 3, 2nd post from bottom
"Oops" is right. It seems that you are "talking out of both sides of your mouth."
Like "evidence for Evolutionary theory," "evidence for God" depends on how one interprets physical evidence. While I could cite "examples of irreducible complexity" on this thread, Evolutionists could use those same examples to provide "examples of macroevolution." Consequently, it boils down to what the individual wants to believe. However, if you wish to debate the concept of Intelligent Design on this thread, then I will participate.
| FFT wrote: | | All science presupposes naturalism, as all things which are real must therefore be natural. |
You are presupposing Naturalism to justify scientists who presuppose methodological naturalism, which is a circular logic logical fallacy. Violation of logical empiricism.
| FFT wrote: | | What on Earth are you even arguing, here? As far as I can tell, you're just explaining how things work? Seriously, I'm curious. What's your stance on this? |
My position is that Evolutionary theory is incompatible with Theism, as explained in my previous post.
| FFT wrote: | | Absence of proof is not proof of absence, true. However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, especially when the entity whose existence is in question would leave evidence. |
"Proof" and "evidence" are synonymous concepts, so the distinction in phraseology made here is purely semantical.
Proof: "1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning [...] 3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity[...]" (ref.)
Evidence: "1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter[...]" (ref.)
That aside, I ask: How do you determine when "absence of proof equals proof of absence"? When it favors your philosophical bias?
| FFT wrote: | | She asked why people were different. I explained that people are different for purely naturalistic reasons, and that a resort to the supernatural was unnecessary for explanation. |
I think you are dodging the intention of lone-travelers' question by twisting the context of the question. But, I will let lone-traveler verify if this is true or not true.
But even with that point "up in the air," my question remains: Can you "prove" that all aspects of individual personality are the result of biological processes? If not, then by what basis do you presuppose a naturalistic viewpoint on the issue?
| FFT wrote: | Miracles: easily explained naturally. Parlor tricks, coincidence, and pareidolia.
Human personality: explained by experience. |
"Because you say so"? How do you know that these answers are correct? Violation of logical empiricism.
| FFT wrote: | | "Sai Baba is not performing miracles, he is performing parlor tricks." |
Nice dodge. What constitutes "an explanation"?
_________________
1 Peter 3:15 [NIV]
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6360
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | She asked why people were different. I explained that people are different for purely naturalistic reasons, and that a resort to the supernatural was unnecessary for explanation. |
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | I think you are dodging the intention of lone-travelers' question by twisting the context of the question. But, I will let lone-traveler verify if this is true or not true. |
My cat gives birth to 4 kittens. And she treats them all the same. Yet they all are individual personalities.
I was wondering where those differences came from, even though they are all born at the same time, in the same way, from the same Tom, and raised the same, eat the same food,...
Why are they different? what "causes" that individuality in the first place?
I guess that's what I was asking..
Where does it come from?
Lone
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:31 am Post subject: Re: FFT |
|
|
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | The line between "skeptical" and "hostile" is quite blurry. The term "hostile" is included in mainstream definitions of "secular humanism" because a significant portion of the "secular humanist" community expresses skeptical hostility towards traditional religious beliefs. |
Mainstream definitions are notoriously fallible. Just because a "significant portion" of the secular humanist can be labeled skeptically hostile, does not mean that it is one of the attributes of secular humanism. Similarly, just because a significant portion of the population believes that the theory of evolution covers everything from the big bang to the present, does not change the fact that the theory of evolution starts with the first living cell.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | It seems that many "secular humanists" cannot differentiate between academic criticism and offensive criticism |
Irrelevant, see above. The actions of individuals are seperate from the whole.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Calling my person "ignorant" and my position "silliness" in an attempt to discredit my viewpoint before debating it qualifies as an ad hominem attack. Violation of logical empiricism upheld. |
The hilarity of it all stands. You really like that red flag gif, don't you? Had it used on you too many times? Oops! Violation of logical empiricism!
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Reality marginalizes God, what with its complete lack of evidence for an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present being. |
So you believe that God is not real? |
I know that there is an utter lack of evidence for His existence.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | What about this: | FFT wrote: | | salvation12288 wrote: | | No, with how complicated this world is you have to believe that there is a God. |
Right, and that's why I believe in God. Oh, wait. Oops again. |
Source Thread:"Evolution is a fact? Questions..", Page 3, 2nd post from bottom
"Oops" is right. It seems that you are "talking out of both sides of your mouth." |
Oops, it seems that you are unable to grasp "sarcasm." Since apparently it needs to be spelled out to you, I'll explain what was going on there.
Salvation12288: Due to the complexity of the world, you have to believe there is a God.
Me: So I believe there is a God, since I "have to." Oops, I don't actually believe in God. Looks like you went wrong somewhere.
Notice that earlier in that post, S had noted that he hadn't seen any people with tails, or fur, and that there would be people around like that if "there was evolution." I pointed out that there are, in fact, people with tails, as well as that there are, in fact, people covered in fur. So "ooops!" he was mistaken.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | While I could cite "examples of irreducible complexity" on this thread, Evolutionists could use those same examples to provide "examples of macroevolution." Consequently, it boils down to what the individual wants to believe. |
What it boils down to is how warped an individual's view of reality is. That there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for everything is not enough, people want to be special, unique.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | However, if you wish to debate the concept of Intelligent Design on this thread, then I will participate. |
I will not. This thread has derailed enough as it is. I'm making a new thread just for you.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | You are presupposing Naturalism to justify scientists who presuppose methodological naturalism, which is a circular logic logical fallacy. Violation of logical empiricism. |
Yeah, pretty much. I wasn't aware, at first, of how much of a rules lawyer you are. Naturalism is presupposed in science just as it is in all things but religion. Naturalism nets results which work. I could explain that Zeus is in charge of thunderstorms, that all storms are at his whim. Does this have predictive power? No. I could, however, were I a meteorologist, explain to you exactly what conditions lead to a storm.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | My position is that Evolutionary theory is incompatible with Theism, as explained in my previous post. |
I'm aware of this, I was not aware of which side of that idea you aligned yourself with. Are you aware that as of 12/16/2005, the Clergy Letter Project has amassed 10,086 signatures? I am aware that arguments from popularity are fallacious, I'm not using this as an assertion.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | "Proof" and "evidence" are synonymous concepts, so the distinction in phraseology made here is purely semantical. |
Perhaps in that "mainstream definition" you seem to hold to. However, you seem to have taken the dictionary definitions and misinterpreted them. "Proof is the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." Note the bolded. Yes, there is evidence involved in proof. However, "proof" is when the evidence actually shows the assertion to be true. That "compel" bit is what sets it apart from evidence.
Evidence, on the other hand, is simply a sign of something. It is not proof of it. For instance, evidence in a murder trial. All sorts of things can be shown as evidence for a person's guilt. If the person is not, however, found guilty, none of those bits of evidence were enough to be proof. Evidence leads to proof, it is not equivalent to proof. Roads lead to Rome, the roads are not Rome.
Ultimately, you have commited an equivocation fallacy. Violation of logical empiricism.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | That aside, I ask: How do you determine when "absence of proof equals proof of absence"? When it favors your philosophical bias? |
Note that I said "absence of proof is not proof of absence." Being unable to prove an entity exists is not the same as proving that the entity does not exist. However, an absence of evidence, especially when there is expected to be evidence, is evidence of absence.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | I think you are dodging the intention of lone-travelers' question by twisting the context of the question. |
Her original question was "how does evolution explain it?" The answer is, "it doesn't." The theory of evolution is concerned with populations, not individuals. She then made a hasty generalization (we're all born the same, we all live on one planet, we all die) while ignoring that each of us has a unique life experience, which was what I pointed out in the previous post. I did not dodge lone-traveler's question, I gave my answer.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | But even with that point "up in the air," my question remains: Can you "prove" that all aspects of individual personality are the result of biological processes? |
No. Why would I? I have not asserted that all aspects of individuality are the result of biological processes. I have asserted that they are the combined result of genetics and experience. I do so based on knowledge of myself and others. Had certain events in the past turned out differently, we would be different people.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | If not, then by what basis do you presuppose a naturalistic viewpoint on the issue? |
It is the most coherent of all options. It is reflected by behavior modification therapy.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | "Because you say so"? How do you know that these answers are correct? Violation of logical empiricism. |
Wrong. Assertions are not violations of logic. I simply didn't have time to explain each of my assertions. Do you have a problem with any of them? If so, point it out, and I will back up my assertion. No violations here.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | "Sai Baba is not performing miracles, he is performing parlor tricks." |
Nice dodge. What constitutes "an explanation"? |
A statement that makes something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure or operation or circumstances.
Sai Baba's "miracles" are comprehensible by the fact that they are naught but simple parlor tricks.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: | I was wondering where those differences came from, even though they are all born at the same time, in the same way, from the same Tom, and raised the same, eat the same food,...
Why are they different? what "causes" that individuality in the first place? |
I understood, I was just a bit hasty.
You say they were born at the same time. They weren't, though, were they? Sure, they were all born within a few minutes of each other, but they didn't pop out in a single globe, did they? How long they take to get out of their mother determines when they are recovered enough from the ordeal to begin suckling. The first to begin suckling will be the first to gain that slight nutritive edge over its siblings. This is the second difference.
The first: their genetics. Each of them has a unique combination of its father's and mother's genes. They are unique. Not really a special kind of unique, perhaps, but unique nonetheless. No matter how much they look alike, they are fundamentally different.
Each of them must occupy a different location in space, or there's a lot of blood everywhere. So each experiences things from a different angle.
Pretty much everything can be extrapolated from this. Does any of this make sense?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: | | I was wondering, how does evolution explain it? |
There is always variation in genes, and much of the brain's processing depends on previous processes. Even identical twins are not alike because of this and because of the multiple mutations each of us carry in our bodies.
But it has been clear for a long time (See the NG special on Harlow's Monkeys) that a difference in environment causes a difference in "personality." The human brain is so plastic/malleable that it adapts to the environment of the person, even as the environment is the person's experiences.
This is not so much a evolutionary as a sociobiologic issue. Remember, evolution is the change in genetic expression of a population over time, not really the individual organisms.
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: | That's what I'm askin..
Why don't people grow up identically. We're all born the same. We all live on one planet. And we all die.
What made one person react differently from one circumstance than another?
Why do some fight and some flee? Why don't they all react the same? |
For one, we don't have the same DNA. Secondly, we learn from our experiences. Animals also don't react the same to stimuli.
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:49 am Post subject: Re: SDMD, FFT, nakhash |
|
|
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | SDMD wrote: | | What do you mean with 'secular humanists"? |
Secular humanist: : "HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed ..... |
Yes, yes, yes. I KNOW what it means. But what is the context and relevance here?
| Quote: | | SDMD wrote: | | You are not one of those who are so ignorant that they believe this is a "God vs Evolution" kind of silliness, are you? |
So, to defend your viewpoint, you are appealing to ad hominem ranting? Violation of logical empiricism. |
Nope. I am observing that some creationists and IDers have tried to claim that one can not be both accepting Evolution and God at the same time. THAT is what I call silliness. And I wanted to be sure that you were not one of those people. I simply asked a question to that extend.
| Quote: | | Evolutionary theory and God are incompatible concepts. |
Your "just because I say so" claim does not match my observation.
| Quote: | | Evolution marginalizes God through methodological naturalism, which presupposes naturalism before and during any scientific inquiry. |
Your claim is false. Evolution AND ALL SCIENCE (as that is included in your description here) say nothing about God, doesn't speak against God and doesn’t claim God's absence.
| Quote: | | As a result, God can enter the equation only when a naturalistic explanation of something is missing, as "God of the gaps." |
Not true. God can be everywhere. We just can't measure or observe God, so we look at the patterns and changes we can measure. NOTHING says that this is not all caused by God. You are showing a fundamental misperception of science here.
| Quote: | | But, such an insertion, while compatible, is contrary to the purpose of methodological naturalism. Further, the concept of God working through Evolution is an unnecessary tautology, for the naturalistic explanation is sufficient enough to carry the process through. |
And that is another illogical claim, as "sufficient" doesn't mean "only." Just because we can measure Scientific Observations and set up Scientific Theories of predictability and cause/outcome as we can measure them doesn't mean that Science says this is not caused by God. We can't measure whether it is God or "natural laws," f.ex. that affect outcomes. We can EXPRESS it as natural laws and Scientific Findings but that doesn't mean that we have proven anything about it not actually being caused by god. If you actually believe this, you need to go back and look closer at what science actually is. Your claim simply is false. You are creating an artificial and false dichotomy.
| Quote: | | In essence, Theistic Evolution tries to reconcile methodological naturalism with ontological supernaturalism. However, if you place primary emphasis on the metaphysical or supernatural, then you take the issue outside of the realm of Science, into the realm of faith. But if you place primary emphasis on methodological naturalism, then you make seeking materialistic explanations superior to the metaphysical or supernatural. Thus, one side, methodological naturalism or the metaphysical, must be made superior to the other in order for a working formula to be generated, otherwise one creates a methodological paradox. |
Only if you insist on an either/or scenario. Actual science doesn't justify this. The Scientific Method is not validated to the point that you claim it is. The Scientific method doesn't exclude non-scientific aspects as proven wrong; rather it excludes them as not measurable. The science doesn't set itself up to replace non-science; it merely finds itself exploring a limited subset of the world, that which can be measured, while acknowledging that it is incapable of saying anything about the rest. It is a subset of the world, nothing else. Your claim of a paradox is false.
| Quote: | | SDMD wrote: | | I have not seen anybody trying to proof what you claimed. |
| SDMD wrote: | | But.. ? Has anybody ever claimed to have the proof for these things? |
You are appealing to an argument from ignorance to dispute my statement. |
No, I am asking for evidence of your claim, as I have not seen such an argument in the past by any scientist.
| Quote: | | On other discussion boards, I have had debates with Evolutionists who tried to make this claim. |
individual people make individual claims. What scientific source have shown this idea that all aspects of personality can be explained through hard scientific facts?
| Quote: | | Moreover, those who are intellectually opposed to supernatural concepts must take such a position. |
SO? That doesn't mean that it is true.
| Quote: | | How do these responses address lone-traveler's questions? |
Well, they are the answer to the question.
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: | she treats them all the same. Yet they all are individual personalities.
I was wondering where those differences came from, even though they are all born at the same time, in the same way, from the same Tom, and raised the same, eat the same food,... |
But they are not genetically the same unless they are quardruplets.
| Quote: | | Why are they different? what "causes" that individuality in the first place? |
genetic differences and environmentla differences ("nature and nurture")
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:56 am Post subject: Re: FFT |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | LuckyStrike wrote: | | However, if you wish to debate the concept of Intelligent Design on this thread, then I will participate. |
I will not. This thread has derailed enough as it is. I'm making a new thread just for you. |
Oh, I want to participate as well <begging>
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SDMD wrote: | | But they are not genetically the same unless they are quardruplets. |
Even quadruplets have unique fingerprints.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nakhash
House Cat
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:03 am Post subject: Re: SDMD, FFT, nakhash |
|
|
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | "Secular humanism" is a secularist emphasis on man being the ultimate focus and standard of things in general, while maintaining skeptical hostility towards traditional religious concepts, especially supernatural concepts. "Secular humanism" does not explicitly reject traditional religious beliefs, but holds that rationality, worldly necessity, and social progress are contrary to traditional religious beliefs. Consequently, because of this generalistic core definition, there are many different variations of "secular humanism." |
You'd be surprised to learn that I'm not a humanist, then. I don't disregard religion because I think it is contrary to the human condition. I don't even believe in a unified concept of "the human condition."
| Quote: | | Evolutionary theory and God are incompatible concepts. |
I agree.
| Quote: | | Evolution marginalizes God through methodological naturalism, which presupposes naturalism before and during any scientific inquiry. As a result, God can enter the equation only when a naturalistic explanation of something is missing, as "God of the gaps." But, such an insertion, while compatible, is contrary to the purpose of methodological naturalism. |
Yup. Which is why God doesn't exist. Glad you agree.
| Quote: | | Further, the concept of God working through Evolution is an unnecessary tautology, for the naturalistic explanation is sufficient enough to carry the process through. |
Man, I love it when you guys do all the work for me. So we agree. God's existence is not necessary.
| Quote: | | In essence, Theistic Evolution tries to reconcile methodological naturalism with ontological supernaturalism. However, if you place primary emphasis on the metaphysical or supernatural, then you take the issue outside of the realm of Science, into the realm of faith. But if you place primary emphasis on methodological naturalism, then you make seeking materialistic explanations superior to the metaphysical or supernatural. Thus, one side, methodological naturalism or the metaphysical, must be made superior to the other in order for a working formula to be generated, otherwise one creates a methodological paradox. |
Ontological supernaturalism is poorly supported and no one but theists take it seriously.
| Quote: | | You are appealing to an argument from ignorance to dispute my statement. On other discussion boards, I have had debates with Evolutionists who tried to make this claim. Moreover, those who are intellectually opposed to supernatural concepts must take such a position. |
God doesn't exist. The belief in God cripples any rational attempt to study the unknown because the individual will always find something they feel they cannot examine the mechanisms of because it is the spiritual territory of religion.
| Quote: | | And how did you come to this conclusion? |
Unless you're going to argue in favor of solipsism, which is not only a dead end, but is also based on poor logic, almost all epistemological schools of thought favor a monist universe. What composes this monist universe differs depending on the school of thought, but the universe is monist just the same. In a monist universe, like substances can interact (whether this substance is matter/energy or perception or whatever) equally. Whatever you call this monist substance, the conclusions you can derive from monism are pretty much identical, thus making all decently suppported epistemological arguments nearly identical to empiricism.
| Quote: | | Hold on a second. How do you determine when "absence of proof equals proof of absence"? |
I don't. I favor "proof of absence equals proof of absence." There is proof of the absence of God. This is not a tenuous stance in the least.
| Quote: | | To justify metaphysical naturalism, Spinoza advocated "Substance Monism," which described "God" as the sole "substance" that exists. Based on this premise, Spinoza equated "God" and "nature" or "the finite order of things," thereby defining "nature" as an "infinite substance" or "substance of infinite attributes." |
Spinoza's reasoning relies on many non-sequitur logical fallacies. While I agree that two substances that share the same set of attributes must be the same, nothing requires that substances that share certain common attribute(s) must be the same. Moreover, the premise that "modes" do not define a substance like "attributes" do, which parallels the Greek philosophical understanding of "substance" and "accidents," does not mean that "modes" cannot be indicative of "attributes" to certain degrees, respectively, thereby not being entirely dichotomous in nature.[/quote]
My argument only begins at the same place as Spinoza's does, with some of the same assumptions.
You already agree that like substances are in fact the same substance. So, unless you can argue convincingly that substance can be limited by unlike substance, you haven't made a convincing argument.
| Quote: | | And how does appealing to physical "law" refute the concept of the supernatural? The supernatural, by definition, transcends the natural. |
Not appealing. Newton's Third Law of Motion is basically the same thing as Spinoza's axiom that substance can ony be limited by like substance, and that substance cannot be limited by unlike substance.
Basically, the statement is this. Like substance can only be limited by like substance and like substance can always limit like substance. While this is reflected in Newton's Third Law, it does not rely on it.
| Quote: | | Two topics have been introduced already: What about miracles? What about the aspects of human personality? |
What about them? Show me a miracle, demonstrate it to me, and not out of a book, and then show me that it is a physical impossibility and demonstrate that not only does it violate the laws of physics as we know them today, but that it violates ALL logically-deduced natural law. Show me that this miracle has no natural cause and can only have a cause that comes from outside the natural realm. I am not going to take the word of a book two thousand years old.
As for personality, that's easy. Want to change a personality? Give a schizophrenic a couple Zyprexa. Give a depressed person some prozac. Give a person a lobotomy. It doesn't matter. Personality resudes in the brain. It is pattern in the brain; pattern of connections, pattern of chemical signals, pattern of hormones and RNAs. Personality is allowed by genetics and is then constructed by hormones and other chemicals in the process of learning. The chemical basis of learning has been demonstrated in more basal animals. Although it is certainly more complex in the human brain, that doesn't mean we won't eventually be able to understand it. To cite personality as a reason to doubt substance monism is foolish when personality is so clearly related to brain structure and chemistry.
| Quote: | | Hold on a second. What constitutes "an explanation"? |
Description of cause, effect, and function with predictive power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekspiulo
Ferret
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: SDMD, FFT, nakhash |
|
|
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Secular humanist: "HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a non-theistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion |
In addition to not accepting your cherry picked definitions of secular humanism (An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.) because they are overly specific for a term which has a very broad usage.
Keep the word humanist out of your mouth and out of your posts. You clearly have no [censorship is a tool of the ignorant] idea what humanism is. Humanism is a complete moral philosophy which at its core can be roughly described as "all human beings have the potential for perfection." Humanism has nothing to do with evolution with gods or with science. Humanists can be either theistic or atheistic. Nothing necessitates humanists aren't whatever flavor of fundamentalist [censorship is a tool of the ignorant] you believe in. A humanist simply also believes in another set of moral ideals. Secular humanists are humanists who are secular. That's really all there is to it. I don't believe in magic and I'm humanist. That makes me a secular humanist it also makes me a long litany of other things by definitions of other people that I'm not even aware of nor do I consciously identify with. It does not automatically entail that I believe in all that other [censorship is a tool of the ignorant] you ascribe to me by way of redefining labels.
Humanist is a label defined by the philosophy of humanism, and you clearly are so far from a similar definition in your own mind you strip meaning from your sentences by including it in them.
If you mean "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods" then use the word atheist if y | | |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
