A frequent visitor to my blog left some comments concerning my post a while back called, The Evolutionists' Empty Demand for Evidence. There, I talked about the arbitrary nature of the philosophical assumptions that underlie science. I've discussed the point a few more times with other critics online and thought I would visit the matter one more time.
Here's a favorite quote that I've found. I've used it a couple of times on my blog but it fits so well here that I'm going to trot it out still another time.
“"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002 [emphasis added]
I think it's funny that the quote begins by saying that creation science is a contradiction in terms. You'll see how ironic that is in a moment. Anyway, please consider the quote carefully. It states first that methodological naturalism is a central tenet of science. It then sort of summarizes what is meant by methodological naturalism – that is, it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Am I putting words into their mouth? Are they not saying they demand observed or testable natural mechanisms? Are we all agreed? OK, let's move on.
Please show me evidence where this principle is observed or testable! I expect “scientific evidence” only please. Take your time. I'll be here when you get back. //RKBentley taps his foot patiently//
Do you see what's going on here? Put another way, secular science demands explanations that are observed and testable but begins with a presupposition that is neither observed nor tested! And they say “creation science” is contradictory?! My irony meter has just exploded!
Now, everyone has presuppositions. I admit that I have them. However, our presuppositions should be rational. To believe in a world view that requires everything be observed or testable without such a view being observed or testable is self defeating. It's a contradiction. It is irrational.
25 comments:
Ummmmmmmmmmmm. It has been observed and tested. Not sure where you're going with this, but evolution has been observed thousands of times in computers, with test colonies, and in nature. Really?
You are an idiot.
I know your profile says you are an idiot but please try to follow along anyway. The point of the post is that the principle of methodological naturalism that has not been observed or tested. Scientific American says that methodological naturalism is a central tenet of science. Why do scientists assume only natural explanations when there is no scientific reason to do this?
Hi, RK. I see what you're saying here, and I think the materialist would respond with, "We know the principle is correct because the principle works. The principle or theory is the underlying idea only, and if our senses and instruments of detection show evidence to support the idea, then we can trust it."
Of course, I agree with you, however. That which we cannot detect with our senses or instruments (the supernatural) is rejected a priori by definition in science. But to me, that is the same as rejecting Henry Ford in studying automobile engineering. The difference is, number one, we don't forget the Author. Secondly, we're not forced into a materialistic framework when we study science (e.g. Multiverse theory, abiogenesis, evolution). Like John Lennox says, science gives us the privilege of thinking God's thoughts after Him.
Of course, the naturalist would say, "Henry Ford is a real entity," which once again just betrays their a priori assumption.
Todd,
I enjoy your thoughts. Thank you again for commenting.
The a priori rejection of a supernatural explanation for anything has been a frequent subject on my blog. What amuses me the most is the sheer contradiction of it. The evolutionist claims that science only seeks a natural explanation but cannot provide a scientific reason why. So in their quest to seek a natural explanation that can be observed and tested, they start with a philosophical assumption that cannot be observed nor tested.
Any worldview not founded upon the Bible is self refuting. It is the house built on sand that Jesus told us about.
God bless!!
RKBentley
I'm a materialist and reject the idea of methodological naturalism because it really is just an ad hoc way of saying your claim is rejected and then we start. When really, we don't need to and shouldn't do that. The supernatural is wrong because it's always been the wrong answer.
Consider a horse race where two horses have raced against each other a million time and each time the first horse has won. And in each and every race the second horse has lost. This is what we find with natural and supernatural explanations. The natural explanation has always been right and the supernatural has always been wrong. You can pick pretty much any previously unknown phenomenon that we got to the bottom of and find that at the bottom was a previous unknown naturalistic explanation and never not once a supernatural explanation. So by virtue of prior evidence and because of the overwhelming evidence we should opt for the answer "unknown naturalistic explanation" as the only answer has ever been right and reject supernaturalism on account of it never being right.
Tatarize,
Thanks for visiting and for your comments. You said that you're a materialist. Can you logically defend that worldview? It seems unlikely because logic isn't material. How could you use something that isn't material (like logic) to defend the position that only material things exist?
I'm also a little puzzled by your claim that the supernatural explanation is always the wrong one. Have you read any of my recent posts regarding abiogenesis? Abiogenesis is an event that has never been observed and cannot be repeated. It is outside of scientific inquiry. If there is no scientific, natural explanation for abiogenesis, then how can you credibly say the “correct” explanation is the natural one?
There are also the miracles described in the Bible. Jesus walked on water, for example. Is there a natural explanation for this? Do you think a natural explanation will ever be discovered? Why is the supernatural explanation necessarily wrong? I suspect you simply reject miracles a priori and always assume there is a natural explanation.
Your position is indistinguishable from the idea of methodological naturalism so even though you claim to reject it, you still employee it.
God bless!
RKBentley
To say you are a materialist and then say you reject methodological naturalism is a contradiction. You must adhere to methodological naturalism in order to explain the universe as a materialist.
It's a bit like me saying I believe in God but I reject the supernatural as the only explanation for His existence.
>>Can you logically defend that worldview?
Yes.
>>It seems unlikely because logic isn't material.
Logic doesn't exist in the way that chairs exist. Chairs are physically there. Logic is true. We call both of these things existence but they are actually different criteria.
>>How could you use something that isn't material (like logic) to defend the position that only material things exist?
By explain the ontology of what that means at a basic level. A shoe exists in a different way than the number 4 exists.
>>I'm also a little puzzled by your claim that the supernatural explanation is always the wrong one.
Why should you. It's true. Supernatural explanations have always been wrong. They have never been the correct answer.
>>Abiogenesis is an event that has never been observed and cannot be repeated.
It might be repeatable depending on the various shades of gray. What we call life is actually much more of a wide array of progressively more complicated reactions. We could do the basic ones and have. The question only really gets towards the idea of what we call alive.
>>It is outside of scientific inquiry.
No it isn't as characterized by the rather significant scientific inquiry into the subject.
>>If there is no scientific, natural explanation for abiogenesis, then how can you credibly say the “correct” explanation is the natural one?
I wouldn't. If there's currently no clearly correct answer to the phenomenon I would say "I don't know". And while there is a lot of really awesome research with regard to abiogenesis we have a lot of specific and interesting points but nothing overarching to explain all the steps just yet. My claim wasn't that materialism and naturalism has explained every problem and answered every question. Just that it's the only thing that ever has answered such problems. And that supernaturalism has never provided such answers ever. Do not confuse, "I don't know" with therefore werewolves are responsible. Or I see a light in the sky and I don't know what it is, with therefore alien visitors. The point isn't that science has explained everything. But that thus far everything that has been explained has always been explained by science, and never by the supernatural. So if we have an open question. We should bet on science and not the supernatural because science is the only thing with a proven track record. That's the core of metaphysical naturalism. The flaw in methodological naturalism is the bizarre assumption that we need to exclude the supernatural by fiat. We don't. We can exclude it because it sucks as an explanation.
>>There are also the miracles described in the Bible. Jesus walked on water, for example. Is there a natural explanation for this?
Yes. It's text in a book. It's as easy to explain as Harry Potter flying on a broomstick. It didn't happen. Sure, I could try to explain how the prophet Muhammad pointed at the moon and split it in half, but since there's no evidence that that actually happened, I'm actually pretty safe in saying that it didn't.
To be an atheist, you do not need to have proof there is no God. You only need to realize that the evidence on the God question is on par with the evidence on the werewolf question. And while I could look at the twilight novels and say Werewolves are real, I do not do that.
>>Do you think a natural explanation will ever be discovered?
Mu. As I pointed out there's a very likely natural explanation. Somebody wrote it down. But the events didn't happen. Fiction, as it turns out, is a very very common and perfectly natural phenomenon. Even fictional elements in specific texts. Sure, Washington was a pretty good president, but the whole cherry tree thing is made up. Why does that not suffice to fully explain the miracles of Jesus?
>>Why is the supernatural explanation necessarily wrong?
My entire point is that it's not necessarily wrong. It's just so likely to be wrong as to make the point rather absurd to claim that it's true. On every question we've ever come to a full and reasonable explanation. When we have gone from mystery to understanding, the answer has *always* been natural.
>>I suspect you simply reject miracles a priori and always assume there is a natural explanation.
That's methodological naturalism. I've told you I reject that. I reject miracles a posterori, because they've never been good explanations. Given any phenomenon from disease to lightning we find supernatural claims. Diseases are caused by demons and we should shoo them away. Lightning is caused by the wrath of Zeus and we should appease him. But, always, and in every case the turns out to be natural causes. Diseases are caused by germs. Lightning is caused by static electricity in clouds. No supernatural forces were involved. I'm fine saying miracle is an acceptable answer, the problem I have is that it's never been a correct answer. We've never once dug down to the core of something and found that miracle was the right answer. Each and every time we dug down to the answer, it was a previously unknown natural phenomenon. So why would we bet on a losing answer over one that has constantly been correct. "Miracle" is a significantly worse answer than "I don't know but not miracle".
>>Your position is indistinguishable from the idea of methodological naturalism so even though you claim to reject it, you still employee it.
I do not. The problem is that we live in a reality without miracles. So whether one disregards them by an irrational fiat or disregards them because they suck as answers, the outcome in the same. Reality is what it is. I actually fully agree that disregarding miracles by some a priori fiat is irrational and illogical. They should be disregarded because they don't happen and there's no evidence that they ever have.
@Todd Williams
>>To say you are a materialist and then say you reject methodological naturalism is a contradiction.
No. I am a metaphysical naturalist.
>>You must adhere to methodological naturalism in order to explain the universe as a materialist.
No. I need to be a naturalist. Which I am.
>>It's a bit like me saying I believe in God but I reject the supernatural as the only explanation for His existence.
No. It would be a bit like you saying that you believe in God but you reject the Trinity, and only accept the oneness of God.
Tatarize,
I think you need to familiarize yourself with the definition of “materialism.” If you believe that non-material things (like logic) truly exist, then in what sense are you a materialist?
You also appear very arbitrary in which non-material things you accept as true. Logic exists in a different way than a chair exists? OK, I'll accept that. Then why can't God exist in the same, real way that logic exists? How do you determine which non-material things are “real”? I suspect you merely pick and choose what you want to believe. There's really no rhyme or reason to your worldview.
Your dismissal of miracles is equally arbitrary. You are actually saying, “Miracles didn't happen because a supernatural cause isn't a good explanation.” How is that any different than methodological naturalism?
The thing I find the funniest about non-biblical worldviews is the sheer contradiction of them. You “believe” only material things exist but “belief” isn't material. Chew on that for a while.
God bless!!
RKBentley
>>I think you need to familiarize yourself with the definition of “materialism.” If you believe that non-material things (like logic) truly exist, then in what sense are you a materialist?
Every sense. I think perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with the nuance of the meaning of "exists". If I say the number four exists. I am not saying it's a material thing floating in the ether. Or the concept of beauty exists. It's simply ignoring pretty much everything about philosophical ontology to suppose that that is the position. It's a dishonest strawman of a view.
>>You also appear very arbitrary in which non-material things you accept as true.
I'm not. Reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away. Logic, whether you believe it or not, does not stop being true because you stop believing it.
>>Logic exists in a different way than a chair exists?
I can believe logic is true and not think I can hit it with a baseball. Likewise I don't think truth is something that applies to chairs and I could strike one with a baseball.
>>Then why can't God exist in the same, real way that logic exists?
Logic is necessary. If you stop believing in it, all the rules still apply and the constructs still absolutely work. If you stop believing in God, it goes away. It exists as a concept in people's heads. It should rather exist like a chair rather than like logic, and actually do stuff and be true or not. When we ask if God exists, we are asking more like like a chair exists not like logic exists.
>>How do you determine which non-material things are “real”? I suspect you merely pick and choose what you want to believe.
Nobody picks and chooses what they believe like that. It's based on the evidence. I am an atheist, not because I have proof there is no God, but because I understand that the evidence for the God question is on par with the evidence for the werewolf question.
>>There's really no rhyme or reason to your worldview.
Actually it's the same rhyme and reason by which I can decide that chair are real and werewolves very likely are not.
>>Your dismissal of miracles is equally arbitrary.
It's only as arbitrary as noting that eaten by a werewolf is a poor explanation for why somebody is no longer around. Mostly because it's never really turned out to be the right answer. That's a property of a bad answer, being consistently wrong.
>>You are actually saying, “Miracles didn't happen because a supernatural cause isn't a good explanation.”
No. I'm saying miracles are a bad answer because they've not, as far as we can tell, been the right answer, ever. If given a phenomenon we don't have an answer to, we shouldn't opt for the answer that's never been right. I'm not saying Jesus didn't walk on water. I'm saying Miracle as an explanation is bad because it's never been the right answer whereas made-up-story has very consistently been the correct answer to an extraordinary claim.
>>How is that any different than methodological naturalism?
The difference is I dismiss miracles because they suck as answers. Methodological naturalism says we should dismiss miracles because science can't really work if we need to worry about miracles happening.
>>The thing I find the funniest about non-biblical worldviews is the sheer contradiction of them.
There are a lot of non-contradictory worldviews. The problem is they do not have basic premises. You must assume the Bible initially because you can't really prove it, and when you try to prove it you use God to prove the Bible and the Bible to prove God. Things don't really work like that. And we can tell how they work by looking at them and doing experiments to determine how they do work.
>>You “believe” only material things exist but “belief” isn't material. Chew on that for a while.
Concepts are ideas in brains. The concept of God exists. Obviously. If you want to say that your God exists in people's heads, I won't argue with you there. It clearly does. That belief exists, the only way beliefs do exist, in minds. Which are the functions of brains, which exist. But, concepts exist within brains. Numbers and rules of logic do not, but nor are they material. They are simply necessary truths or definitions within mathematical systems. They do not exist as chairs exist.
No matter how much one discusses ontology and these philosophical intrigues it never suddenly makes God create the universe. It doesn't make Jesus blood clear the sins of man as God sacrifices Himself to Himself. At best you could point at water and try to muddy it, but you aren't turning it into wine or turning myth into reality as to how the universe actually works.
Christianity is exactly the system that a goat sacrificing blood-atoning group of backwoods folk would invent after being exposed to pagan son of god mythology. A son of God who sacrifices himself to himself to forgive mankind. Because God needed blood to fix the universe and only his own blood had enough magic to do it, so he gave himself a body and killed it. -- No amount of supposing I do not understand philosophy as it relates to ontology fixes this and makes it less absurd. Firstly, I do understand what I mean by ontology, from the ontology of concepts, to the ontology of transcendental aspects, to things that exist like chairs and the universe, and things that don't like werewolves and gods. Saying oh the number 4 exists and isn't material is predicated on "the number 4 exists" being like how "a chair exists". That's a different meaning of the word exists. Much like concepts of God exist, while God very likely does not. You can't say ontology is hard and therefore God wins. -- That's not how things work.
Tatarize, you said, "Sure, Washington was a pretty good president, but the whole cherry tree thing is made up. Why does that not suffice to fully explain the miracles of Jesus?"
This line of logic is very strange indeed. What does the cherry tree have to do with Jesus' miracles, other than you believe them to both be fiction? I doubt you've really researched and taken seriously the eyewitness accounts of the New Testament. No offense, but you're reasoning comes off as very lazy and not well thought out.
Equating the New Testament to werewolf novels? I suggest you actually do a real study on the New Testament (no, not from atheist websites) and take history a little more seriously. Otherwise, it's really difficult to take your arguments seriously.
Tatarize,
You should stop trying to educate me on materialism and examine what the philosophy truly holds. You said you believe the concept of beauty exists but, if materialism is true, there is no such thing as beauty. According to materialism, “beauty” is merely a chemical reaction in our brain responding to some outside stimulus. We could be trained to believe dog poop is beautiful. Your “belief” is also nothing more than a chemical reaction in your brain. So if materialism is true then you saying the philosophy of materialism is true is really no different than saying spaghetti is “true.” If your worldview is true, then you have no foundation to say that my belief is wrong since that would be like saying spaghetti is “wrong” or an apple falling from a tree is “wrong.”
The only way to say I'm wrong, is if you were to acknowledge there is a transcendent standard of right and wrong; but that would mean there is a super-mundane, non-material standard of right and wrong so you would be wrong. Ironic, huh?
Finally, your arguments of incredulity are not very persuasive. If Jesus walked on water before your eyes, simply saying that “a miracle is just a lousy explanation” doesn't make a miracle the incorrect explanation. That's all you've said thus far; you simply don't believe miracles have ever happened. You'll excuse me if I don't kowtow.
God bless!!
RKBentley
>>You should stop trying to educate me on materialism and examine what the philosophy truly holds.
I would not feel it necessary if you would stop getting it wrong.
>>You said you believe the concept of beauty exists but, if materialism is true, there is no such thing as beauty.
No. Because when I say that beauty exists I mean it in a different way than I mean that chairs exist.
Materialism at it's most basic says that "things are made of stuff". While beauty exists, it's not a thing. While the number 7 exists, it is not a thing. The idea of God exists, but it is not a thing.
>>Your “belief” is also nothing more than a chemical reaction in your brain.
No. My belief is a certainly something of my brain, but it's not only that. It's also a claim about reality. 2+2=4 is something I believe, but it's also something else.
>>If your worldview is true, then you have no foundation to say that my belief is wrong
Sure, I do. You believe statements about reality that are demonstratively false. Just like if I believed 2+2=5, it would be a belief, of what beliefs are made of, and yet be something else and that else would be wrong.
>>The only way to say I'm wrong, is if you were to acknowledge there is a transcendent standard of right and wrong;
There is. It's a conformation with reality. Do those beliefs make statements about reality? Are those statements true?
>>but that would mean there is a super-mundane, non-material standard of right and wrong so you would be wrong. Ironic, huh?
No. That epistemology, that way of determining right and wrong, is science. Yes, there's a standard by which to tell that somebody's belief in bigfoot is very likely wrong, science. Trying to strawman materialism into saying something bizarrely different than what I mean when I say the word, isn't going to make your God any more reasonable than bigfoot.
>>If Jesus walked on water before your eyes, simply saying that “a miracle is just a lousy explanation” doesn't make a miracle the incorrect explanation.
Sure, but a miracle actually being a lousy explanation does. Case and point I've seen Chris Angel walk on water. And while I can't rule out miracle, I don't think it's a very good answer.
>>you simply don't believe miracles have ever happened.
No. My claim is that of things we now understand that we previously didn't understand. Of things that were once a mystery and no longer are a mystery every single one of those has been an unknown natural phenomenon, and none have been determined to be supernatural causes. I'm not saying that there are no miracles, or that there can't be any. I'm saying that since miracles have always been the wrong answer, we should, bet against them in all cases where the answer is unknown. Saying, "oh well the answer to how this works is unknown, therefore miracle!" Is the problem. I'm saying, perhaps we should bet against miracle because it's a pretty terrible bet on account of never once ever in the history of mysteries paid any dividends. Somebody always bets on miracles or the supernatural, and they have thus far always lost their money.
Sure, somebody could walk on water before our very eyes. But, I bet you a hundred bucks it's not a miracle.
Tatarize,
You seem to be saying, “materialism is what I say it is.” Perhaps it was a bit optimistic of me to suggest you examine the philosophy of materialism. You obviously don't get it and don't seem interested in learning. Maybe you could at least look up the definition? Until you do that, I'll at least help you one hint - definition of materialism is not “things are made out of stuff.”
In materialism, matter is all that exists (oops, I gave you the definition). Things like beauty, love, hope, fear, hate, etc, do not exist. They are only chemical reactions occurring in our physical brains to which our bodies react. “Loving” someone is a material event just like an apple falling from a tree is a material event.
According to materialism, the ideas of right and wrong are no more or less real than love and hate. A materialist can say, “I love this so it is right. I hate this so it is wrong.” It's no more binding or sure than his opinion of what is beautiful and what is ugly. In materialism, there is no absolute standard of what is right or wrong. Your idea of “right” is similar to your idea of “beautiful.” It's not absolute. You might think something is beautiful that no one else thinks is beautiful. Does that make everyone else “wrong”?
When you say I'm wrong, you are merely expressing the chemical reactions in your brain. They are no more a statement of truth than saying the sun is shining wrongly.
If you believe some absolute truth exists, then please demonstrate it to me SCIENTIFICALLY. No philosophical arguments, please. I know with certainty that you cannot because the minute you begin to argue that a transcendent standard of “right” exists, then you contradict your own worldview. It's inescapable because every non-biblical worldview is ultimately self-defeating. Absolute truth only exists in my worldview so the more you claim that I'm wrong, the more you prove me right!
Now, concerning miracles, you're not only engaging in an argument of incredulity, you're also employing argumentum verbosium (argument by verbosity). You keep repeating that miracles have never happened as though by repeating it, it makes it true. Jesus performed many miracles: He healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, fed the multitudes, and many others. By simply repeating, “miracles don't happen, miracles don't happen, miracles don't happen,” you've not said anything that proves His miracles didn't happen. I'm very glad you're sure of that but your opinion of His miracles means nothing more to me than your opinion of what is beautiful.
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
>>Maybe you could at least look up the definition?
I've read entire books on the subject. Namely Richard Carrier's "Sense & Goodness Without God, A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism." I am a metaphysical naturalist. I know what I mean when I say that.
>>definition of materialism is not “things are made out of stuff.”
Basically that's is the definition.
>>In materialism, matter is all that exists
Things (matter) is all the exists (like chairs exist). Things are made of stuff.
>>Things like beauty, love, hope, fear, hate, etc, do not exist.
All of those are just brain states. They all do exist, and no materialist would deny they do.
>>Your idea of “right” is similar to your idea of “beautiful.”
No. 2+2=4 is right. Nothing can put that asunder. If you don't believe it, you are wrong. If I think something is beautiful and you think it is ugly there is no contradiction there. So no, veracity of actual things in reality are different than brain states.
>>When you say I'm wrong, you are merely expressing the chemical reactions in your brain.
No. It's built from the evidence. You are saying things are true, which have never been true and which if true would set asunder many very well established truths.
>>If you believe some absolute truth exists, then please demonstrate it to me SCIENTIFICALLY.
Science isn't about absolute truth. It's about evidence. I am not an atheist because I have absolute truth and know that there is no God. No. I am an atheist because I understand the evidence for the God question is on par with the evidence for the werewolf question.
>>I know with certainty that you cannot because the minute you begin to argue that a transcendent standard of “right” exists, then you contradict your own worldview.
Hardly. TAG isn't a valid argument. And my reliance on science isn't an absolute but an acknowledgment that it has provided correct answers for us. We can tell this because we're writing on advanced computers over the internet, which is a whole lot of technology based on a whole lot of science.
>>It's inescapable because every non-biblical worldview is ultimately self-defeating.
No. Every biblical worldview tries to cheat and say the Bible proves God and God proves the Bible and you don't need any premises you'll just assume you're right from the start and if I don't do that you'll take your ball and go home! TAG isn't victory, it's ignoring the fact that you need to do real work to establish a functional epistemology and figure out a way to actually determine what is right and what is wrong.
>>Absolute truth only exists in my worldview so the more you claim that I'm wrong, the more you prove me right!
I'm rubber and you're glue! Having the most certainty doesn't make you the most right. It makes you feel the feeling of certainty the strongest and consequently the most closed minded.
>>Jesus performed many miracles: He healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, fed the multitudes, and many others.
Jesus is a character in a book. Harry potter performed many acts of magic. It says so right in the Harry Potter books. And we can know they are true because the prophecies of the first book are so well fulfilled in the seventh!
>>I'm very glad you're sure of that but your opinion of His miracles means nothing more to me
The point is they should mean nothing more to you than me pointing out the miracles performed by Muhammad. He split the moon in half by pointing at it! Amazing.
The problem here is that with any functional epistemology we must admit there is a serious problem with your religion if your religion has no better reason to believe it is true than we have for admittedly false religions.
Nothing but bald assertions and arguments from incredulity, a logical mess. Exhausting.
Tatarize,
You said, “I've read entire books on the subject. Namely Richard Carrier's "Sense & Goodness Without God, A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism." I am a metaphysical naturalist. I know what I mean when I say that.”
Oh, well then. You've read books. I had no idea. Of course that makes you an expert. You're certainly qualified to redefine what a materialist is.
You said, “Basically [things are made out of stuff] is the definition.”
Did you learn that from the book? Then I withdraw my conclusion that you're an expert. Would it surprise you to know that I too believe that things are made out of stuff? After all, what else are things made of if not stuff? However, that isn't the definition of materialism. Materialism asserts that matter is all there is.
You said, “Science isn't about absolute truth. It's about evidence.”
But you ARE stating an absolute truth. You're saying that matter is all there is. That's an absolute statement. However, I know you haven't been everywhere in the universe and I also know you're not omniscient so there is no way you can possibly know that matter is all there is. You have a faith like belief in something you cannot possibly know.
By the way, where is the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that matter is all there is? If science is about evidence, I want to see the scientific evidence for naturalism.
You said, “Jesus is a character in a book. Harry potter performed many acts of magic. It says so right in the Harry Potter books.”
Caesar is also a character in a book. There's a difference between being the character in a book of history and being a character in a book of fiction. No one believes Harry Potter is a person. 2,000 years from now, people will not be worshiping Harry Potter.
Do you have any EVIDENCE that Jesus' miracles were not miracles? Do you have EVIDENCE for anything you assert? For someone who claims to only be persuaded by evidence, the only evidence you've offered thus far is your flapping gums.
God bless!!
RKBentley
>>After all, what else are things made of if not stuff?
More pressing what things are not made out of stuff? Souls, angels, God, heaven.
>>Materialism asserts that matter is all there is.
"In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter."
Nah, it means a lot more than the straw man you are proposing. But, quibbling over definitions doesn't help much. And that's basically all you're doing.
>>However, I know you haven't been everywhere in the universe
Again, atheism isn't having proof there is no God. it's knowing that the evidence for God question is on par with the evidence for werewolf question.
I also happily say there are no werewolves. But, again, I don't know everything in the universe, so maybe I'm wrong. I'm fine with that. I'm okay being wrong and finding out there are werewolves. But, it doesn't make me believe they exist or stop saying that there are no werewolves.
The lack of absolute proof doesn't mean that I can't say things like there are no gods or there are no leprechauns but rather that I might be wrong about those claims, though there's not one shred of evidence currently that I am, and not enough ambiguity to avoid the conclusion.
>>You have a faith like belief in something you cannot possibly know.
Atheism requires as much faith as saying the sun will rise in the morning or that there are no werewolves. Theism requires as much faith as saying that elves live in my pants. -- It's the difference between all the evidence we have on the subject, and believing something for which there is no evidence at all.
>>If science is about evidence, I want to see the scientific evidence for naturalism.
For every example of a mystery we have ever had, we solved that mystery, and in every case we find that the answer to that mystery is natural stuff, and previously unknown phenomena.
>>There's a difference between being the character in a book of history and being a character in a book of fiction.
While this is true, there's little to suppose the gospels are not mostly fiction. They may well be historical fiction like Johnny Tremain or Forrest Gump, or aggrandized history to the point of pretty well being fiction.
But, there's a difference between being proconsul and being the risen messiah whose blood God needs to fix the universe, who is God and sacrificed by God to God to appease God's anger at God's creations, for God's creation's ancestors, eating God's magical fruit, from God's magical tree, in God's magical garden, on the advice of a talking reptile.
>>2,000 years from now, people will not be worshiping Harry Potter.
But if they did, they'd have as good of reasons to do so as you do for believing in Jesus.
>>Do you have any EVIDENCE that Jesus' miracles were not miracles?
You cannot say that unless you have evidence that Herodotus (a first class historian who talked directly to witnesses) record of a Miracle of cooked fish being resurrected or that the most holy temple of Delphi had floating swords defend itself from attack.
Should we accept these miracles until such time as somebody can disprove them? Or can we really go ahead and say that writing something in a book doesn't make a miracle, it makes it text in a book.
>>Do you have EVIDENCE for anything you assert?
Generally the entire universe. This universe looks exactly like it would need to look if there were no God. If religions were regional myth-based belief systems that emerged out of their cultures and life arose by chance and evolved through a process of evolution by natural selection.
The better question would be do I have any reason to suppose that Christianity is false. And yes. The central story is a great reason to suppose it's just made up. God needed blood to fix the universe, and only his own blood had enough magic to do it so he gave himself a body and killed it.
If you mix paganism which loved their stories about gods and the children of gods, the demigods and their wacky adventures, with a group of people who loved their blood sacrifice. You might well end up with Christianity. The blood sacrifice of the son of God to forgive the sins of the people. And those are exactly the two cultures that were mixed when Rome took over Israel.
The core of Christianity is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. In blood sacrifice to himself. That the oxygen carrying cells of some organisms on this planet somehow appeases the creator of this universe. That God created 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in this universe and is entirely focused on the oxygen carrying cells of this one species on this one dinky planet that he takes human form to sacrifice himself to himself and sit at his own right hand.
That doesn't really make a lick of sense if we regard it as true. But, if we regard it as false, it is *EXACTLY* what goat sacrificing primitives would have invented as their religion.
Taterize,
More flapping gums.
I shouldn't be wasting my time with this but I think your hypocrisy is so glaring I want other folks to see it.
You said, “In philosophy,... “
So, is philosophy material? If your worldview were true, “philosophy” is about as profound as “mustard.” Anyway, the definition you've provided comports much better with my definition of materialism than yours.
You said, “The lack of absolute proof doesn't mean that I can't say things like there are no gods.”
It obviously doesn't stop you. The fact that your committing the logical fallacy of a universal negative (there is no God) or the fact that your claiming an absolute truth (matter is all there is) while at the same time saying there is no absolute truth doesn't seem to phase you in the least.
On the other hand, I think your constant contradictions and continuous logical fallacies say more about your position than the points your trying to make.
You said, “For every example of a mystery we have ever had, we solved that mystery, and in every case we find that the answer to that mystery is natural stuff, and previously unknown phenomena.”
You've not yet provided me with a natural explanation of how Jesus walked on water or raised from the dead. All you've said is that it didn't happen.
You said, “Should we accept these miracles until such time as somebody can disprove them?”
An interesting point. So what should I do with the gospels? Do I ignore them? If any scientist investigated some event – like a train wreck – wouldn't he ask any witnesses what they saw? It would be peculiar for an investigator to summarily dismiss the EVIDENCE of eyewitness testimonies. You can tell me about how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be but I guarantee you that at every accident, investigators will still ask the witnesses what they saw. It's EVIDENCE and they use it to help piece together what happened.
We have alleged, eyewitness accounts to the miracles of Jesus including His resurrection. You're like the peculiar investigator who summarily dismisses their testimony and you do so on the flimsy grounds that “miracles don't happen.” I'm a little more open minded than you because I've considered all the evidence.
You said, “This universe looks exactly like it would need to look if there were no God.”
You're being absolute again. You've not examined more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the universe and you claim to know what's in the entire universe.
If matter is all there is, then where did matter come from? You must decide if matter is eternal or if it poofed itself into existence. Neither option is very scientific. I believe the mere existence of the universe is de facto evidence of a transcendent, eternal Creator. So the universe looks exactly like it does because there's a God.
God bless!!
RKBentley
>>So, is philosophy material?
No. But then philosophy isn't a thing like chair is a thing. So it isn't made of stuff, like atoms. But you seem confused by something being true and something being material. Go ahead and just call me a metaphysical naturalist. Maybe that wouldn't confuse you as badly.
>>The fact that your committing the logical fallacy of a universal negative (there is no God)
No. I'm saying that there is no God with as much confidence as I am saying there are no werewolves. I'm not saying it absolutely, I'm saying it's as ridiculously unlikely as magical leprechauns.
>>You've not yet provided me with a natural explanation of how Jesus walked on water or raised from the dead. All you've said is that it didn't happen.
That is a perfectly natural explanation to such claims. There are actually quite a lot of claims from religions between the -4 and 2nd centuries that claimed resurrection of the dead. Some such miracles are better attested to than Jesus'. And yet, we can very well explain the phenomenon of reports of miracles by saying they didn't happen.
How would you explain how Muhammad could have pointed at the moon and split it in half? You know without the obvious answer that the Hadith is wrong and that never happened?
>>An interesting point. So what should I do with the gospels?
You should suspend your judgment, and not accept that they are not fiction without a good reason to do so. And since the only reason ever offered for the Gospels are the Gospels, you'll likely just go around noting that people don't walk on water or fly on broomsticks and the best explanations to the miracles of Jesus Christ and Harry Potter are that they didn't happen.
>>It would be peculiar for an investigator to summarily dismiss the EVIDENCE of eyewitness testimonies.
The gospels are not eyewitness evidence. There is a lot of actual understanding of the Gospels and how they were written and they aren't eyewitnesses.
>>It's EVIDENCE and they use it to help piece together what happened.
I'm not saying you can't say the gospels aren't evidence. I can say that they aren't good evidence, and end up being about on par with any book as evidence. Trying to use the Bible to prove God is like trying to use a comic book to prove Superman.
>>We have alleged, eyewitness accounts to the miracles of Jesus including His resurrection.
We don't. Just as we don't really have eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of superman after his death at the hands of doomsday.
>>you do so on the flimsy grounds that “miracles don't happen.”
What if those reporting on the train wreck all said Superman knocked it off the track?
>>You've not examined more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the universe and you claim to know what's in the entire universe.
No. I am claiming that that tiny fragment that we know about is what we should expect of a universe without God. After all if there were a God rather than needing more planets than there are grains of sand on the beaches of Earth, God could have just made one planet that worked and put life on it. The only reason you need to buy a trillion lottery tickets to win the lottery is that you cannot accurate predict the winning numbers in advance.
>>So the universe looks exactly like it does because there's a God.
If you can just poof a God out of nothing, why can't I just poof a universe out of nothing. Putting aside all of modern cosmology, even the straw man cosmology you assigned me is more reasonable.
Post a Comment