Replies

I haven't seen it, I might want to check it out! But again, to bang the drum, "science" is supposedly based upon empiricism (except when "science" is discussing evolution, which is an eminently non-empirical speculation). But the problem is that empiricism - essentially knowledge based upon what we derive from the senses - is no better of a means of coming at knowledge than any other, and is indeed worse than some. Empiricism can easily be rendered useless through misinterpretation - then the problem lies with the act of cognition which apperceives the sensory input. This is, at its root, a psychological and philosophical problem, and underlies much of the fallacy of evolutionary argumentation. Essentially, evolutionists attempt to argue from the strictly empirical - bones we dig up, genetics, etc. - to the metaphysical assumption that their interpretation of these empiricals must be correct. But to do so, they have to ditch empiricism and rely strictly on their own metaphysical assumptions. In other words, evolutionary interpretations about "science" - old earth, naturalist evolution, etc. - only become substantiated when you assume those very same interpretations, which is circular reasoning.

The "scientist" seeking to argue for naturalism and against theism on the basis of empiricism always and interminably falls into the same trap that David Hume did (and from which he never successfully extricated himself, I might add), which is that of assuming that sensory perception amounts to the suma tota of existence. If Hume couldn't see, hear, smell, touch, or taste it, then it didn't exist. Problem is - as was argued by his contemporaries - this would give truth value to the obviously absurd conclusion that a tropical prince, having never seen snow, would be entirely reasonable in assuming that you were either lying or out of your gourd if you were to tell him about it. Argumentation from strict logic aside, the fact of the matter remains that snow DOES exist, no matter how "reasonable" it might be for him to assume otherwise. Indeed, in this case, evidence from testimony proves to be SUPERIOR to evidence from empirical observation.

Such it is with the cases we've seen on this thread. Empiricism, "science", is in no way a debunking of arguments either of the historicity of Christianity, nor of the reality of miracles, etc. in the Bible, nor of the reality of personal religious experience. Simply because the non-believer hasn't experienced them doesn't mean they don't exist, and simply because a miraculous event testified to in a document doesn't "fit in" with the laws of science that we know (or think we know), doesn't mean that those events are invalidated.

==In other words, evolutionary interpretations about “science” - old earth, naturalist evolution, etc. - only become substantiated when you assume those very same interpretations, which is circular reasoning.

Excellent reply. I see this all the time in my debates with Evos. Indeed, it is so pronounced and obvious that the fact that they can’t see it remains a complete mystery to me.

==The “scientist” seeking to argue for naturalism and against theism on the basis of empiricism always and interminably falls into the same trap that David Hume did (and from which he never successfully extricated himself, I might add), which is that of assuming that sensory perception amounts to the suma tota of existence.

I remember reading a bit about this in D’Souza’s book, “What’s So Great About Christianity.” If I remember correctly, he points to Kant as the antidote to Hume’s attempt to limit all knowledge to empirical observation.

Empiricism can easily be rendered useless through misinterpretation - then the problem lies with the act of cognition which apperceives the sensory input.

The philosophy of science has already taken this into account and moved from Positivism, to Post-Positivism, where instead of assuming measurements are accurate, the assumption is that measurements are flawed and therefore must be "triangulated" between multiple sources. And instead of objectivity existing separately, it is "constructed" from multiple perspectives. And from that comes the primacy of consensus.

We start with positivism, but realize that there are limitations of measurement and bias, therefore the truth comes from a consensus of biased measurements. Ta-da! Hegel's dialectic writ large, plunged into the heart of society's general philosophy as truth. Bias doesn't make wrong, it adds color! And if most of the scientists are biased in one direction? Well, that's as close to truth as you can get in this philosophy.

And practically, there are external forces on the general bias of science that post-positivism doesn't account for, like distribution of grant money and social desires to be accepted within the larger group, which is made worse by a philosophical inertia that post-positivism brings with it. Mix it all together and you can put the breaks on any radical discovery. Slow and steady is the key, and current theories or meta-theories like evolution have to be thoroughly exhausted before consensus can slowly head in another direction.

I have long been bemused by the rejection of metaphysics or a transcendent reality by many, if not most, scientists.

Considering the fact that neither the human mind nor thought nor even an idea can be scientifically measured - but all are accepted as existing - one has to wonder why metaphysical reality is so universally rejected by the scientific community. (To be explicit, while the brain can be measured, weighed, even photographed, the mind cannot be measured in any way. As to thoughts and ideas, their results can be measured but not the thought or idea itself; it just “is”.)

In other words, were it not for the metaphysical reality of the human mind, we would not even be aware of the physical reality in which we exist. That is, while our ears hear, our eyes see, our bodies feel, our noses smell, etc, and our brains receive all these stimuli, without our minds to interpret them, we would not be aware of their existence.

Perhaps - just a thought - the rejection of metaphysical reality is because to accept it would be to accept the transcendent possibility of a god...