Replies

"Your silly attacks on me are meaningless -- they only serve as red herrings to draw attention away from the subject at hand, which is your anti-science theology. Since I'm only here as a non-scientist to defend science, your attacks on my arguments (and on me personally) are just proxies for your attacks on science itself, I'd say."

Again with characterizing honest statements of observations as 'attacks'. You certainly do personalize the conversation.

"Sure you might well claim that you just love science, and it's only me trying to defend science that you attack. But to say that, you'd first have to confess that there IS such a thing as "science," which so far you've refused to do. Indeed, we might then logically ask, how can you pretend to "love" a subject (science) which you deny even exists?"

I do love methodological naturalism. Why would you think otherwise. It's people who personify science as having human attributes and misrepresent philosophical naturalism as methodological naturalism that are deceiving the world.

"All of it. That's because, by definition, methodological naturalism (science) has no place for supernatural interventions (God). By contrast, religion -- Christianity especially -- is all about the acts and purposes of God as they relate to mankind. In other words: by definition, all of the Bible disagrees with science -- every word of it. So any part of the Bible we hold true is, in a sense, in contradiction of science."

That's what I thought. You believe evolution over Genesis because man says that the earth is older than 6,000 years. No room for the supernatural anyplace where you believe man over the Bible.

"I'll put this as simply as I can: the Bible is not about science, it's about God and mankind. Science is not about God or anything else supernatural. It's only about the natural world, and natural causes which govern it."

I'll put this as simply as I can: you believe the word of men over the Word of God where it pleases you and invoke the supernatural where it pleases you. There's nothing empirical about that and therefore nothing empirical about your faith in science.

"Baloney. The discipline science claims for itself is "methodological naturalism." The charge of "philosophical naturalism" is usually just a pejorative, thrown by anti-science theological-philosophers claiming that science is nothing but atheism."

Nope, philosophical naturalism is the foundation of science. Were it not, you could present a theory not based on philosophical naturalism. You can't. They don't exist, you just won't admit it.

"The truth is, some scientists do subscribe to "philosophical naturalism" -- also known as "metaphysical naturalism" or "ontological naturalism." And you could easily call that belief their religion -- or more properly: their denial of religion."

The truth is that all scientific 'theories' are proposed by people who adhere to philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is the religion of people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs.

"However, many other scientists reject philosophical naturalism as the basis of religion, and instead believe in Christianity or some other traditional teaching."

Those are the YEC's.

"But let us note carefully the distinctions between methodological and philosophical naturalism."

Let us note carefully that the distinctions are not presented when philosophically natural theories are presented by people who accept philosophical naturalism 'a priori'.

" Philosophical naturalism denies the very existence of a supernatural realm, saying: the natural world is the ONLY world there is."

Yes, I know. Science is based on it. Were it not, you could point to a theory not based on philosophical naturalism. You can't.

"Methodological naturalism does not deny the existence of a supernatural realm, but says instead: by definition, science can only deal in the natural realm with natural occurrences."

Yes, I know. Origins theories like the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution do not rely on methodological naturalism. They rely on philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

"In other words, where methodological naturalists can be scientists during the week and still go to church on Sunday, philosophical naturalists, by definition don't go to church. Is that clear enough for you?"

IOW, you are back to mistaking 'truth by definition' for reality. Is that clear enough for you?

"Another false accusation. I have redefined nothing."

You said above that you deny any Biblical exegesis that disagrees with philosophical naturalism. That is redefinition.

"And of course you DO "condemn" science -- that's what this whole exchange is all about. If you did not condemn-reject-dispute-mock-etc science, then we'd have nothing left to discuss."

What's clear is that you must characterize me as 'condemning' science or you would have to admit that I am correct and you would have nothing to discuss.

"Further, there is ONLY a public debate about this subject at all because of the ID-Creationists' decades and decades long efforts to get their religious ideas taught in public school science classes."

You support letting the philosophical naturalists present their religious beliefs in public school science class. How can you deny anyone else the same privilege?

"So, do I understand you to now say that you reject those efforts to get ID-Creationism taught in public school science classes?"

I'd say that you understand almost nothing at all.

"I speak of "science" in the same way we speak of "Christianity" of "conservatism," or any other ideas-based teachings."

So, you are back to personifying science again?

"A most curious assertion, and as usual for GourmetDan, without explanations or evidence provided to support the claim."

It's a simple statement. A methodology cannot be controlled. It's not my fault that you find that difficult to understand.

"Nonsense. I've admitted no such thing. I'm afraid of no such thing. And unlike you, who mock and attack me at every opportunity, I've never mocked, much less "demonized" you. Do you disagree? Go find an example, pal."

You constantly accuse me of 'attacking' you, science and anything else you want to believe in. You just did so above, pal.

"I think your paragraph above betrays some pretty serious misunderstanding on your part. You should think hard about what those are."

I think your posts betray some pretty serious misunderstandings on your part. You should think hard about what those are.

"Your mistake, not mine. The word "science" refers to the disciplines of methodological naturalism, as well as to the doctrines of "settled science," as well as to the debates of (how shall we say it?) "un-settled science," plus the however loosely knit groups of people who work in fields of scientific study, research, development, etc."

Back to personifying science after denying that you do so?

"What "science" does NOT include are those people and ideas who reject the fundamentals of methodological naturalism."

Like assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

"Utter nonsense. All truly scientific theories (which excludes ID-Creationism) are based on methodological naturalism. None that I know of require the further "leap of faith" into philosophical naturalism."

Utter nonsense. All truly scientific theories are based on assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Like the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution.

"And as always for GourmetDan, you've here refused to define your terms, or supply any supporting evidence for your claims. That makes this claim of yours bogus."

Retreating back into your 'truth by definition' hideout again? It has nothing to do with reality, despite your valiant attempts to equate it.

"Wrong again. I've assumed nothing regarding "macro-evolution." I've made no claims about it whatsoever, beyond "long-term micro-evolution," or if you prefer, "long-term adaptation." It's only YOU who continually use that word "macro-evolution" -- as a weapon against evolution and science in general. And against me. You make all kinds of crazy claims about what I supposedly believe regarding "macro-evolution." But at no time have you defined what YOU mean by that word."

Let's see. You say you've made no assumptions beyond 'long-term micro-evolution'. Does that mean that you have made an assumption or not?

And get over the 'weapons' talk and the 'crazy claim's talk. All you do is demonize my position so that you can misrepresent it. That's weak thinking.

"Here you are wrong yet again. None of science substantiates your claims. But you can easily prove me wrong on that point by citing an example."

You can easily prove me wrong by showing what of science invalidates my claim.

"AND, BTW, WHY ARE YOU YOURSELF NOW PERSONIFYING SCIENCE?? ;-)"

No, that's your position. Simply replace the word 'science' with methodological naturalism and show what of methodological naturalism invalidates my claim?

"Rubbish. You use fancy foreign words just like you use every other word -- without defining your meanings or providing evidence of support. Instead, you apparently hope that I should believe true whatever you say. Well... I'll tell you what I do believe: the fancier and more foreign a term, the less likely it is in the ordinary sense to be true. So, if you fill your arguments with nonsensical terms, I reject them for what they are: rubbish."

Rubbish. You characterize anything you can't understand as 'fancy foreign words'. You retreat into 'truth by definition' as a substitute for reality. You fill your posts with nonsensical arguments, I reject them for what they are: rubbish.

"What's easy to see is that you continually make false accusations. In fact, beyond "personifying science" (which you do too, whenever it suits your purposes!), I've done none of those things."

Nope, I point it out each time you do so. Even when you deny it, or admit it, whichever is the case.

"I've also reported FACTUALLY, that there ARE debates amongst scientists about various aspects of so-called global warming. That is not disputable."

What's not disputable is that you characterize scientists according to your beliefs. Those who reject long-ages and a young-earth are not serious scientists. More truth by definition. Again, it has nothing to do with reality.

"I've also reported FACTUALLY, that there are NO debates amongst scientists regarding claims of ID-Creationists. That's because, by definition, ID-Creationists -- whatever they may claim about themselves -- are not scientists."

Yep, more 'truth by definition'. That which you don't want to discuss you simply define as 'not scientists'. That's weak.

"As for supposed "argument ad populum" let's see you quote an example of such inappropriate argument. Are you perhaps referring to questions of just what may be "settled science" or "unsettled science"? I've said those terms refer to whether there is actual debate amongst real scientists over a particular subject. And it is not inappropriate "ad populum" to report the FACTs of such debate or no debate."

Again, 'argumentum ad populum' is arguing that a thing is true because x number of people believe it is true.

"This is more than enough response for one post. But it seems I'm barely half way through your arguments. Will complete the rest later."

I thought I didn't have arguments. Now you say I do. Which is it?

"I'll put this as simply as I can: you believe the word of men over the Word of God where it pleases you and invoke the supernatural where it pleases you. There's nothing empirical about that and therefore nothing empirical about your faith in science."

Nonsense, likely just a baseless projection of your own state of mind.

"Nope, philosophical naturalism is the foundation of science. Were it not, you could present a theory not based on philosophical naturalism. You can't. They don't exist, you just won't admit it."

I've seen no evidence, certainly not from you, that any scientific theory requires your "philosophical naturalism" as its basis. So I'm guessing you're just projecting your own state of mind onto the theories of science.

Do you have evidence to support your claim? If not, why should I believe it?

"The truth is that all scientific 'theories' are proposed by people who adhere to philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is the religion of people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs."

Philosophical naturalism is the religion of SOME people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs, BUT NOT ALL. Christianity is the religion of many people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs. And your problem with this is what?

"Those are the YEC's. "

A minuscule minority of Christians are YEC's.

"Yes, I know. Science is based on it. Were it not, you could point to a theory not based on philosophical naturalism. You can't."

I know of no scientific theory requiring "philosophical naturalism" as its basis. Perhaps you could provide "proof" that at least some are?

"Yes, I know. Origins theories like the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution do not rely on methodological naturalism. They rely on philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and the fallacy of affirming the consequent."

So you claim, but as in everything else you assert, provide us no evidence. Makes me wonder about your "critical thinking skills."

"IOW, you are back to mistaking 'truth by definition' for reality. Is that clear enough for you?"

Nonsense. You are merely denying common accepted word definitions.

"You said above that you deny any Biblical exegesis that disagrees with philosophical naturalism. That is redefinition. "

I said no such thing.

"You said above that you deny any Biblical exegesis that disagrees with philosophical naturalism. That is redefinition."

I note how quick you are to accuse me of "poor thinking skills." But look what you did here: first you made a false accusation against me, then put your own false accusation words into my mouth, accusing me of saying them!

I surmise from this that your own "thinking skills" are not quite as rich as you imagine them.

Of course, you could avoid this kind of embarrassment if you simply stopped with the false accusations, and concentrated your arguments on providing us with data and reasons supporting them.

"What's clear is that you must characterize me as 'condemning' science or you would have to admit that I am correct and you would have nothing to discuss."

If, as you claim, EVERY scientific theory is based on "philosophical naturalism," how could you NOT condemn all of science? Are you now telling us that you support "philosophical naturalism" when it suits you to?

"You support letting the philosophical naturalists present their religious beliefs in public school science class. How can you deny anyone else the same privilege?"

I support the teaching of science in public school science classes. Your pathetic efforts to redefine science as "just another religion" are ludicrous, imho.

By the way, even some public schools do offer courses in religions - theology - philosophies, etc. I have no problem with those at all, and have never known anyone to confuse those subjects with science.

"So, you are back to personifying science again?"

You refuse to answer my argument. I take it you have no answer.

"A methodology cannot be controlled."

Can you cite even one example?

"You constantly accuse me of 'attacking' you, science and anything else you want to believe in. "

Your posts are full of false statements about science and false accusations against me. If you don't like being called on it, then stop doing it.

"Like assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent?"

No.

"All truly scientific theories are based on assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Like the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution."

So, in what way is your false claim here NOT an attack on all of science? In what way are you not anti-science?

"Retreating back into your 'truth by definition' hideout again? It has nothing to do with reality, despite your valiant attempts to equate it."

Sorry pal, but we can't communicate without words, and words of necessity have definitions. Since you so much enjoy distorting or ignoring word definitions, I've hoped to bring you back to reality by reminding you what certain words mean.

Obviously these reminders only inflame your passions for further false accusations.

"Let's see. You say you've made no assumptions beyond 'long-term micro-evolution'. Does that mean that you have made an assumption or not?"

I'll take for granted what you don't deny: adaptation aka micro-evolution, beginning when life began and continuing through today. The debate then is, when did it start. For answers you go to the Bible and tell us, "6,000 years ago." Scientists examine natural evidence and tell us "looks like some billions of years."

By the way, your accusations to the effect that scientists started with an old age in mind and then went looking for evidence to support that is simply false. In fact, they started back in the 1800s with young age ideas, then slowly slowly extended their estimates back as new evidence developed.

"What's not disputable is that you characterize scientists according to your beliefs. Those who reject long-ages and a young-earth are not serious scientists. More truth by definition. Again, it has nothing to do with reality."

Can you prove your claim that the Bible tells us the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Can you cite a single work of scientific argument, evidence, or scientist, supporting your claim the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Can you demonstrate in what way your arguments are "methodological naturalism"?

"Again, 'argumentum ad populum' is arguing that a thing is true because x number of people believe it is true."

I have not made such an argument. I have reported such relevant facts as: only a small minority of Christians belong to churches which teach Young Earth Creationism; and no recognized scientific journal has published a peer-reviewed article defending such ideas. These facts don't make your arguments right or wrong, but they do tell us how seriously, or not, most people take them.