That is the complete paragraph from the linked site Aquinas from which your statement at Reply #1243 was abstracted. I would love you to help me analyze it.
But first, may I note that you are submitting "evidence by Authority." So, who is this "authority?" The person who holds the copyright on this philosophy website goes by the name of Luke Mastin. He seems to be the same person who holds the copyright on yet another website devoted to explicating all of physics. Evidently, he is a prodigious individual: If he had any help from other people, he doesn't mention it.
Just saying. Since I wasn't able to find out anything more about this person, I doubt I will accept him as a bona fide authority.
Now to the analysis of the statements at the top of this reply.
As already pointed out in an earlier post, I reject the idea of "special revelation" as being the exclusive province of "people of the Book": Plato for example never heard of the Holy Scriptures, nor of Jesus Christ. Yet he managed to infer a unitary cosmos that was ruled by Logos, which to me dovetails very well with my understanding of Genesis 1. He did not accomplish this merely by means of a process of deductive reasoning. He did not do this merely by sorting out external evidence, trying to find some sort of explanatory pattern for observed phenomena. Plato worked "from the inside out" — so to speak — from apperceptive, subjective mind (nous) in direct response to "pulls" from "outside," which are not of material, but of divine origin and character (Nous).
Of course it is true that "the Trinity and the Incarnation ... may be known only through special revelation and may not otherwise be deduced." Well, certainly they can never be "deduced." They are articulations of the greatest story ever told that exists at the very foundation of Western culture and civilization. [No wonder you and spirited irish have been in such a tizzy lately....]
As to what can be "deduced" from "natural revelation": Natural revelation does not reduce to "computability" concerns — as it would be according to the present method of science. I have been subject to "natural revelation" regarding the very order of the universe from a young age, just from stumbling around in nature in my childish gambols, and "exploring" it. The upshot being: I could never doubt subsequently that the universe has a divine origin and purpose.
Anyhoot, Plato makes it clear that he sensed an "outside correspondent" participating in his meditations. This may be represented by his great symbol of the Demiurge of Timaeus. But I, a Christian, would simply call it: the Holy Spirit, conducting the Light of Christ Logos.
You continue to claim that science is all about "natural explanations for natural processes"; indeed, is so defined. And then make it clear that if I disagree with you about this, then there is something seriously wrong with my reading comprehension, or general level of intelligence.
My childhood epiphany about God and His Order (before I was "theologized") was a perfectly "natural process," at the lowest level of description. After all, I am a human being, a natural living organism, not a member of the Angel community; nor am I a unicorn or some such other fantastic creature.
I think that what is most wrong about your "definition" of science is that it presupposes that the natural world is entirely material, physical, always directly observable in all its most important phenomenological aspects.
At the root of this expectation is the utter confidence that many scientists continue to have in "classical physics" — that is, Newtonian physics — as the tool for the job of explicating the ever-persistent mysteries of biology. It seems to me that Newtonian physics is just dandy at handling problems involving closed, inorganic systems in nature. It essentially specifies and then reifies a "machine model" whose activities are driven by local causation exclusively.
But biological systems in nature are not machines. And given their organizational structure — which is the most fascinating thing about them, and which is, if anything, a "super-natural" property (in that it cannot be reduced to an observable, but whose absence would quickly translate a living organism into a dead one).
BTW, I do agree with you that natural and supernatural revelatory experiences are "complementary."
Which is why I find it so odd that, nowadays, so many popular defenders of science — e.g., Richard Lewontin, Richard Dawkins, "the usual suspects" — want all investigations of "super-nature" to be killed in the cradle....
You can't just segregate one unified Whole — which is the Universe of Nature itself, including human nature — into abstract categories according to personal taste — e.g., "natural vs. supernatural" — and then expect Nature to comport with your abstraction. Indeed, this would be a fine example of A. N. Whitehead's "Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness."
I find it odd that I never heard of these supposedly "popular" people until they were brought up by Creationists, and they are the only ones I ever see or hear mention them.
At the root of this expectation is the utter confidence that many scientists continue to have in "classical physics" — that is, Newtonian physics — as the tool for the job of explicating the ever-persistent mysteries of biology. It seems to me that Newtonian physics is just dandy at handling problems involving closed, inorganic systems in nature. It essentially specifies and then reifies a "machine model" whose activities are driven by local causation exclusively.
But biological systems in nature are not machines. And given their organizational structure — which is the most fascinating thing about them, and which is, if anything, a "super-natural" property (in that it cannot be reduced to an observable, but whose absence would quickly translate a living organism into a dead one).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
True.... admitting that there Can be an "invisible friend"(Holy Spirit) transcends mechanics..
Most scientists seem to be "shade tree mechanics"..
Fumferring over timing, drive belts, gears and fuel and such..
even aerodynamics, genealogical dynamics and function of design...
What "LIFE" IS seems to be illusory.. magical.. and overlooked..
When what life IS, is the point..
No life.. then science becomes silly..
Life comes from "somewhere" but nobody knows "where"..
It comes from other than the machine..
If it came from the machine whats broken could be deduced maybe fixed..
Life obviously comes from somewhere "ELSE".. than the machine..
But "WHERE?"....... the answer to that can and usually does shape one's world view..
----------------------------------------------------------
I quoted two complete sentences.
Your third sentence is irrelevant to our present discussion, FRiend.
betty boop: "But first, may I note that you are submitting "evidence by Authority."
So, who is this "authority?...
...I doubt I will accept him as a bona fide authority."
The opinions expressed there equate to those I've read in numerous other places over many years.
So they represent "conventional wisdom" on this subject.
betty boop: "I reject the idea of 'special revelation' as being the exclusive province of 'people of the Book'."
Sure, that's fine, but it's not the subject under discussion or debate.
The issue here is whether any such "special revelation" qualifies as "natural science"?
The answer is: obviously not, and that is pretty much the only major point I've been hoping to make.
betty boop: "Of course it is true that "the Trinity and the Incarnation ... may be known only through special revelation and may not otherwise be deduced."
Well, certainly they can never be "deduced."
They are articulations of the greatest story ever told that exists at the very foundation of Western culture and civilization.
[No wonder you and spirited irish have been in such a tizzy lately....]"
Whatever else the Trinity doctrine may or may not be, however much the Trinity may or may not have been revealed or "deduced" from scriptures, whatever "articulations" it expresses at the foundations of Western culture and civilization, the Trinity doctrine is still not, never was and never will be "natural science".
Also, I don't assume that spirited irish is in some kind of "tizzy" lately, or ever.
Rather, I conclude that somewhat like yourself Ms boop, Ms irish has an agenda, namely to use this "news/activism" forum as a vehicle for expressing her religious beliefs.
Those beliefs, not surprisingly, include a strong condemnation of "the world" as we know it, and a call to come home to the sanctuary of her religion.
This hypothesis explains virtually every spirited irish post, and is not contradicted by any.
betty boop: "Natural revelation does not reduce to "computability" concerns — as it would be according to the present method of science."
The "present methods of science" are the only methods of natural-science, period.
Of course, you are free & welcome to adopt whatever other methods for understanding truth you might wish, just so long as you don't call those other methods by the name, "science".
betty boop: "The upshot being: I could never doubt subsequently that the universe has a divine origin and purpose."
Nor do I, but I never call such theological and religious beliefs "scientific".
So can such simple distinctions possibly be so difficult for you to grasp?
I'm beginning to think not, and that your apparent "incomprehension" is a matter of obstinate refusal, not stoopidity.
betty boop: "You continue to claim that science is all about "natural explanations for natural processes"; indeed, is so defined.
And then make it clear that if I disagree with you about this, then there is something seriously wrong with my reading comprehension, or general level of intelligence."
Before I could ever ask you to agree, I must first see some small sign that you even comprehend & understand the basic distinction between what is science, and what is not.
So far, I've yet to see even a small acknowledgement that such distinctions can be made.
Instead, you consistently insist on using the word "science" as a proxy for "reality" or "truth", if not "Truth".
So, you are dead-set and determined, come h*ll or high water, to keep blurred the distinction between what is "natural" and what is not.
And my response to your obstinacy is: of course, you are entitled to such opinions, but they are irrelevant to the scientific mission to, find natural explanations for natural processes.
betty boop: "I think that what is most wrong about your "definition" of science is that it presupposes that the natural world is entirely material, physical, always directly observable in all its most important phenomenological aspects."
My definition of the word "science" presupposes no such thing.
It only posits that anything outside the natural world is also outside the purview of "science".
Please tell us why you so obstinately refuse to acknowledge such a simple distinction.
betty boop: "But biological systems in nature are not machines.
And given their organizational structure — which is the most fascinating thing about them, and which is, if anything, a "super-natural" property (in that it cannot be reduced to an observable, but whose absence would quickly translate a living organism into a dead one)."
Your assertion (without supporting evidence) that "biological systems are not machines", may or may-not be true, but is irrelevant to science, which can only examine biological systems as if they were "machines".
Any examinations or hypotheses of super-natural aspects of biology fall outside of science.
betty boop: "nowadays, so many popular defenders of science — e.g., Richard Lewontin, Richard Dawkins, "the usual suspects" — want all investigations of "super-nature" to be killed in the cradle...."
Like tacticalogic, I've never heard of these people outside the context of anti-evolution screeds.
I care nothing about them, and don't know why I'm invited to defend them.
But the obvious truth about them is that: when they cross the line from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism, they are also, in effect, crossing the line between science and their atheistic religion.
As such, however much they may wish to cloak their atheism in scientific terms, we can still understand them as expressions of religion which will be meaningless to those who don't share such beliefs.
betty boop: "You can't just segregate one unified Whole — which is the Universe of Nature itself, including human nature — into abstract categories according to personal taste — e.g., "natural vs. supernatural" — and then expect Nature to comport with your abstraction.
Indeed, this would be a fine example of A. N. Whitehead's 'Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.' "
But of course, you can, and science does exactly that.
Beginning (so far as I know) with the, ahem, distinctions first pointed out by Aquinas, the scientific enterprise has focused its attention on: natural causes for natural processes, period, and none other.
You know, just the other day I saw a wonderful bumper-sticker which said:
So I ask again, why do you so obstinately refuse to grasp such a simple idea?
I don’t take Evolution to be a big issue. I think some of the Theory’s more ardent advocates give it a mystique greater than it merits, but science is not the object here. Propaganda is.
What I take exception to is the indifference Darwinians have for the takeover of the schools by a regime of Socialist thugs who regard education as nothing more than their ministry of information. I object to Darwinian militants coming on this forum, to attack and disparage Christianity, justifying their behavior as a defence of Holy Science. I object to their indifference to the concept of government by consent of the governed and to the consequences when violence is done to that concept.
What I also take exception to is the pretense that issues not in dispute somehow answer issues avoided (for example, see post # 1275).
And finally, I ask of Darwinians as I have before: Which do you consider the greatest threat: Christians on this forum with whom you disagree? or the Socialist louts who so obviously intend to hijack America? With whom do you contended? With whom do you at least ignore if not pretend their complete absence? Simple questions, requiring nothing more than the most simple of answers. Yet all this forum gets is subject changing and attempts at intimidation.
Thank you betty, for the genuine issues you’ve highlighted and so thoroughly explained in this thread.