Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK

“Right, by definition of the term “natural science”, it is strictly bounded by natural explanations for natural processes.
If you bring God into it, then you are “thinking outside the box” of science, and that, again by definition, is non-science.

>However, from Enlightenment times “natural philosophy”, today’s science, was intended to be a methodological not ontological or metaphysical assumption.
It was then intended that we study natural processes to learn how God’s creation works, not to find ways to deny God’s existence.”

Right which was classical rationalism(not today’s debauched notion of what is rational thought or notions that if one is not being “rational”, one is crazy) Operating from a given or accepted notion, supportive rationales are developed to buttress support of the original a priori thought.

Modern scientific thought seeks to derive knowledge directly from what is observed versus the employment of a priori bias in trying to understand that same observed object. Thus the tension points between deductive and inductive reasoning..... Hume vs Descartes. The mistake being made is that I believe both methods may be used and that it is indeed true to our humanity that we should do so.

Old age rational and deductive reasoning is looked upon with suspicion now a days for it quite frequently draws upon apriori bias, even when such reasoning has been shown to lead to testable and repeatable results. Suspicions especially arise against such a researcher who confesses to a belief in the Living God. His science might be good but the Anti-deity Inquisition must ignore that reality for his thinking is tainted by all that untestable God business. His work product is to be declared tainted; all respectable atheistic scientists who are grounded in materialism and the inductive method must ignore such a creature, they must see him vilified...even if the antigravity car he just invented actually works!


453 posted on 09/22/2019 7:26:51 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies ]


To: mdmathis6
mdmathis6 post #453: "Old age rational and deductive reasoning is looked upon with suspicion now a days for it quite frequently draws upon apriori bias, even when such reasoning has been shown to lead to testable and repeatable results.
Suspicions especially arise against such a researcher who confesses to a belief in the Living God.
His science might be good but the Anti-deity Inquisition must ignore that reality for his thinking is tainted by all that untestable God business."

The fact is there are still significant numbers of believing scientists who put on their methodological smocks when they come to work and take methodological assumptions back off again at work-day's end so they can go home to families and pray for God's grace on them, their loved ones and dinner, Amen.

604 posted on 10/27/2019 5:17:54 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson