Posted on 04/06/2009 9:30:07 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Nature of Naturalism
by David F. Coppedge*
The arrogance of anti-creationists stems largely from their pride in offering natural explanations for the world instead of supernatural explanations. No matter how much evidence can be shown for God's action in nature, secular scientists always rule it out of bounds from the outset, because they argue that any appeal to the supernatural is forbidden in science. It is time to challenge this claim, because it is flawed at its core. The natural/ supernatural distinction breaks down under scrutiny...
Ping!
What is the difference between this and the Taliban?
read later
I see the talking points have gone out.
How long have you been a Communist?
Thanks for the ping!
Plus the fact that a naturalist/materialist/psychological determinist is faced with the problem of the epistemological dilemma of determinism being self invalidating, self contradicting and self refuting.
Really, the only difference between the evolutionists and the Taliban is that the Taliban use swords to dismember their opponents, while evolutionists use lies and illogic to destroy science (which is their opponent)
Another argument for magic?
I suppose the President would put conversion of lead into gold high on his funding list along with embryonic stem cells.
He’ll need the money.
Welcome to FR! Please ping us when your IQ reached double digits.
There you go, with all that magic talk again!
“Really, the only difference between the evolutionists and the Taliban is that the Taliban use swords to dismember their opponents, while evolutionists use lies and illogic to destroy science (which is their opponent)”
Well said.
Welcome to FR! Please ping us when your IQ reached double digits.
I been here and contributing $ for 11 years. You have the insulting quality of a DU’er - learn some manners!
"What is the difference between this and the Taliban?"
You first, bubba.
If your computer wasn't working, and you called a repairman, would you be satisfied if he said, "the problem is supernatural. You should call an exorcist?"
==If your computer wasn’t working, and you called a repairman, would you be satisfied if he said, “the problem is supernatural. You should call an exorcist?”
No, I would call somebody who understands the intelligent design of my computer.
Thats pretty much a definition of science's role and limitations. Unless the author wants science to do philosophy and theology - which some scientists do in error.
Science itself is a concept. It requires additional non-physical concepts: the moral categories of …
Science doesn't require this, scientists and society do if scientific is to have value on these levels. Hitler showed that pure science is value-free.
Scientists doing theology is the problem and it's not fixed by requiring they use a different theology.
They didn’t really discuss the foundational flaws of naturalism as a scientific methodology.
Epistemologically, it’s an category error to mix philosophy and science. Science can be deterministic as in Newton, or not as in Quantum. It goes where the science leads. Philosophy then can ponder conclusions about ontology or whatever.
But Newton’s or Einstein’s or Heisenberg’s philosophy or spirituality is not included in the equations or scientific theories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.