Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
There may even be a range of possibilities available to us today because we don’t know enough yet. Sometimes philosophies have to confess when they are stumped.
So "we" are going to define a metaphysical framework based on Biblical scripture, and tell Buddhist, or Hindu, or scientists of any other religous belief that they can only work within that framework?
Ultimately, we would approach a posited explanation the same way something like, say, the theory of relativity was approached. Let’s treat it as though it were true and look at what follows; the fruit proves out what you are calling the tree.
In my case I have discovered the bald statement “God is love” explains a whole lot. It orients the entire scripture and gives place to a lot of details. The “why” question also tells us how far we need to go in discussing the “what.” One of the biggest pitfalls we can get into when discussing such things is to discuss them for the sake of pride and not love. Big, angry, snotty wringle-wrangles like what appear in this thread result. I think we do not even NEED to answer the OEC/YEC dichotomy definitively to have a very robust Christian life. I lean OEC because of Romans 1:20 (OEC models give us a deeper display of God’s glory to be amazed at) but I don’t beat anyone over the head with it.
I’m saying choose what you choose but please do not ignore the consequences. The sciences aren’t carried out in vacuums.
Any scientific theory is subject to being falsified by testing. Are you prepared to submit your metaphysics to testing, and admit that it's wrong if the evidence doesn't support it?
Well, I would be bold enough to say that if people test dipping into the devil vs. dipping into God, per a classic scriptural model, they’ll see a difference.
I’m saying the “why” question is more important than the “what” question, and that it gives place to the “what” question. If you are stuck in the “what” question then you are saying the “why” question is unimportant. And that is in fact what the scripture says is the devil’s game....
And please realize that one kind of falsification is the falsification of your own nature. If a science calls you a robot, are you willing to swallow that? If not, then you have falsified that science.
The kind of potential falsification I'm talking about is the kind that was applied to Einstein's theory of relativity. You asked for equal treatment of your metaphysical theories.
I mean equal by analogy, not equal in a stultified fashion. All you can come up with is the tautology “my science conforms to my science.” And so it does. But I would hope that a “theory of you” would not thus philosophically imprison itself.
I.e. I am suggesting the falsification test be “try it and see what happens... and if self contradiction results, stop and look elsewhere.”
I don't believe that anyone is entitled to their own science, any more than they are entitled to their own facts. You're the one proposing erecting a metaphysical fence built on your own personal theology that science must stay within the boundaries of.
Then you are proposing a theory that cannot be falsified. That is not a theory. That is dogma.
Your definition only partially accords with the definition given in the Oxford dictionary of the English language: "Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
Note that this definition includes, not only "observation" — science's principal method which basically describes its field of operation — but also "experience."
It seems clear to me that "experience" is a category that accommodates such things as, say, "qualia." It is evident that human beings incessantly have experiences of "qualia." [E.g., self-conscious thoughts, feelings, subjective reactions to sensory inputs (e.g., "hot", "cold"; "light," "dark"; "red," "blue," etc.]
And yet science has no traction by way of its method to bring such a class of experience into the "realm" of what it can directly observe and measure.
But just because science can't address qualia methodologically, does that mean that qualia are fictional?
Therefore I would say that your definition of what is "empirical" has been reduced to senselessness, given universal, historical human experience, and just plain common sense.
JMHO FWIW
Thanks, as ever, dear tacticalogic, for writing.
Wouldn’t calling someone an ass hat fall under ‘attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer...’ and therefore not be its own category, but rather a subset of the one above it? And, is this a Contridiction or a Counterargument?
My definition of "empirical" differed from yours only in the exclusion of "experience". Since you've declared that to reduce it to "senselessness", then apparently you consider only "experience" to be sensical, and all the rest to be nonsense.
I'll take your opinion on this matter into consideration based on it's apparent logical consistency and practicality if that's what you wish.
Kindly allow me to add to boop’s excellent observations one other very basic fact fundamental to the Judeo-Christian Tradition, to the American understanding of justice, and to Science modernly understood, that it is so taken for granted as to be often overlooked; this being that our understanding of how Science functions is built on the same rigorous intellectualism that was applied to all the great cultural pillars of Western Civilization.
Sometimes it seems to have been forgotten that Science, as it is modernly understood every where but perhaps in some Islamic cultures, is an intellectual product of Western Culture, and a direct descendant of the Judeo-Christian Tradition.
“State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules. In this branch, therefore, read good books, because they will encourage, as well as direct your feelings.”
. . . . . Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol 5, pg 257)
“they will encourage, as well as direct your feelings.” What Jefferson was telling young Carr is that “facts” alone cannot guide human action, but must be contemplated in a much wider cultural context tempered by value judgments derived from religious and other Western cultural influences. This seems to have been an inspiration grasped particularly well by our Founding Fathers. It can be found permeating the writings of them all. It escapes only the comprehension of the willfully blind.
My thinks particularly to you, betty, and to spirited, as well to others, for including me in this fascinating and valuable dialog.
I love the way marron turns a phrase so well it just leaves us bobbing our heads saying “so true.” Thank you, dearest sister in Christ, for bringing this one to my attention - and thank you again for all your insights, dear marron.
Truly said, dear spirited irish, ideas have consequences.
Thank you so much for your encouragements and insights, dearest sister in Christ!
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.