Science is Dead to me

[Confused-by-christianity]

It's the nature of inductive reasoning. You can look up the rules of a game and then from the rules prove how things work in particular instances. In science, you have to observe the particular instances and infer the rules.

Is it possible to infer something that turns out to be untrue later on??
(Assuming you’ve done everything correctly)

All Euclidean triangles have interior angles that sum to 180 degrees. That's proven truth. Don't see anything spiritual there.

Euclidean triangles angles always sun to 180 is truth ???
I think there might be room to expand language here a little. It sounds slightly off.

"So far all the predictions of the theory have been confirmed." is more like it. In Newtonian theory, gravitation is a force. And tests always confirmed it. Then Einstein showed that it could be confirmed to be the distortion of space by mass. And then when it was tested and found to be true, it became a fact. But
Bottom line in science? "It works."

I think we are in the same mind here and not really at odds.

My big question that I’d really like to know - is probably dealt with in philosophy or something - maybe philosophy of science or epistemology

Nice chat - god bless

 

[Matt5]

The problem is everything. Take any institution where being better is not rewarded properly and being mediocre is not punished properly, then eventually the better will leave and the mediocre will take over. Welcome to the western university system. This process seems to apply where pay is heavily affected by years of service: The military and teachers at all levels are examples.

The problem really is everything.

The Band of Debunkers Busting Bad Scientists - WSJ

https://archive.ph/lmKHg

Judith Curry: How Climate “Science” Got Hijacked by Alarmists - YouTube

I've got a nice big list of articles here:

science+

science+

119 bookmarks

raindrop.io

 

[Job 33:6]

The problem is everything. Take any institution where being better is not rewarded properly and being mediocre is not punished properly, then eventually the better will leave and the mediocre will take over. Welcome to the western university system. This process seems to apply where pay is heavily affected by years of service: The military and teachers at all levels are examples.

The problem really is everything.

The Band of Debunkers Busting Bad Scientists - WSJ

https://archive.ph/lmKHg

Judith Curry: How Climate “Science” Got Hijacked by Alarmists - YouTube

I've got a nice big list of articles here:

science+

science+

119 bookmarks

raindrop.io

Climate change is obviously occuring. I'm not sure why the church has such a hard time with this.

First it was outright denied. Then when it was tol blatant to deny, the opposition turned to "well mankind couldn't possibly be the cause" despite overwhelming evidence of CO2s effect on earths temperature.

Then many in the church act as if it's a crime for people to request that industries stop polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Climate change is obviously occuring. I'm not sure why the church has such a hard time with this.

First it was outright denied. Then when it was tol blatant to deny, the opposition turned to "well mankind couldn't possibly be the cause" despite overwhelming evidence of CO2s effect on earths temperature.

Then many in the church act as if it's a crime for people to request that industries stop polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

Because for some, everything that's not mentioned in the Bible and purportedly scientific is a lie of "the Anti-Christ."

Those folks will change their tunes, I'm sure, when it's their homes or neighborhoods that begin to get flooded for the first and second time ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't really see the discussion about being realism vs anti-realism in this thread, or rather I see no reason to try to dissuade scientific realists of their realism. I do, however, believe there is an unfounded epistemic optimism that popular presentations of science encourages. It seems to me there has been a strong epistemic shift away from a historical skepticism(even of a moderate sort) due in large part to the purported success of science. I see this as criticial to apologetics, because the success of a methodological approach to research is typically seen as endorsement of the semantic content of the theories. When I speak of being an antirealist, in truth I am not speaking to an ontological position but to an epistemic one as it is merely a skepticism/agnosticism towards the "approximate" truth of science.

I also see skepticism, genuine skepticism and not the type of selective skepticism that is so often championed by anti-theists, as being critical to intellectually honest pursuits. It is insufficient to say that something is "approximately true," because there is no way to measure the distance between what is actually the case and what we currently know. So since we can explain the success of scientific research purely by appeal to the methods employed, the intellectually responsible is to leave questions of whether or not it truly refers open. So I see my antirealism not as a positive position, but instead as not entering a claim on the matter.

It seems to me the discussion in this thread has largely been colored by assumptions that I am pushing for creation science or anything of the like. It would be a lot easier to leave science to the scientists if there was discourse in the popular literature that recognized the serious challenges to realism and skepticism was given its appropriate weight.

Couldn't we just say that many times there isn't enough Critical Thinking being applied?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that agnosticism is nothing more than a presumption of atheism. In truth, if someone were actually agnostic it would be impossible for them to overcome epistemic challenges like the trickster god.

I don't think Agnosticism is a blanket epistemic view. It merely applies to some truth claims (like religious ones), but not to others (like physical ones). People can perceive they don't have enough info about God to know that He exists; but people can, at the same time, perceive they do have enough info that the Sun will rise in the East each day or that their microwave will, once again, heat their food to the desired, palatable temperature. IOW, Agnosticism isn't a worldview. It's an epistemic description, given by a human perceptual agent about a particular concept, claim or set of related concepts or claims. So, "trickster gods" of the Cartesian sort need not apply.

Sure, but confidence in what exactly? Science is a powerful methodology, but its success can be explained without resorting to any realist propositions. Which if we stick to heuristics like occam's razor, we should seek no further explanation for science's instrumental success than the methodology employed. Inventive men and women sifting creative theories based on how many predictions they are able to accurately make, with the singular focus employed making it operate extremely efficiently. It's possible to explain the success, while remaining agnostic(or even pessimistic) about the truth or falsity of the theories.

I think it'd be simpler to say that science is sometimes right and sometimes wrong, and sometimes only approximately true. And this fits with our expecations about the nature of its various methods. We don't expect Absolute and Comprehensive Truths to necessarily be gained about our world through science. The idea is that we human beings are in a finite, limited position in relation to the larger World around us. We can find out about some phenomenon of our World, but even when we do, there's typically more than can still be found out about that same phenomenon and its other physical relations to the wider scale of larger and smaller phenomena.

 

[Fervent]

I don't often see appeals to "common sense"; more often, "the data show."

It's not so much that people make direct appeals to common sense, but that there is a false sense of what is known as "common sense realism" or naive realism that science reinforces. This isn't an issue of selecting naturalistic theories through the scientific method, but a question of the reliability of inference to the best explanation which is built on a common sense understanding of the world.

And since causes can be either necessary or contingent insofar as God is concerned, how does being entirely self-caused impose on God the requirement to be necessary?

It's not a matter of causes, but the existence of God. Ultimately, as far as causes goes it is either the case that contingent causes extend into infinity or there is a necessary cause at the root of all causes. If it is the former, God's existence is an impossibility. If it is the latter, God's existence is then a necessary fact. If He exists, He exists because His existence demands His existence and there is no possible way for Him to not exist.

Whereas, if we choose a top-down epistemology, it has nothing to do with human reason?

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. A top-down epistemology gives us a reason to trust our reasoning, because we aren't blindly searching for what is true from nothing but our reasoning but building knowledge based on what an omniscient God has revealed to us. We can then make inferential moves to a reliable bottom-up approach, but such an approach must then be subordinate to the top-down foundation. This is how Newton and other early scientists approached science, but modern epistemologies have largely abandoned the need to justify science as true in a non-circular fashion.

 

[Fervent]

Couldn't we just say that many times there isn't enough Critical Thinking being applied?

In a sense, but often it's not so much that there isn't critical thinking being applied but that there is too much optimism in reasoning itself. Necessary concessions for reasoning to proceed impinge on our ability to arrive at truth unassisted, but these concessions are ignored because there is a sense that unaided human reasoning is the only possible approach to truth.

 

[Fervent]

I don't think Agnosticism is a blanket epistemic view. It merely applies to some truth claims (like religious ones), but not to others (like physical ones). People can perceive they don't have enough info about God to know that He exists; but people can, at the same time, perceive they do have enough info that the Sun will rise in the East each day or that their microwave will, once again, heat their food to the desired, palatable temperature. IOW, Agnosticism isn't a worldview. It's an epistemic description, given by a human perceptual agent about a particular concept, claim or set of related concepts or claims. So, "trickster gods" of the Cartesian sort need not apply.

It's not that agnosticism itself is a blanket epistemic view, or a worldview in itself. It's that agnosticism is little more than a cop-out for atheists to deny that they are making a claim about the status of God's existence. To believe that it is unlikely for God not to exist is not agnosticism, especially when that belief is based on a standard of evidential support. If someone were truly agnostic, they wouldn't be able to set aside skeptical propositions like that there exists an omnipotent malevolent being that is deceiving them into all of their ordinary beliefs about reality. What agnosticism typically does is hide an epistemic approach that renders it impossible to demonstrate God's existence.

I think it'd be simpler to say that science is sometimes right and sometimes wrong, and sometimes only approximately true. And this fits with our expecations about the nature of its various methods. We don't expect Absolute and Comprehensive Truths to necessarily be gained about our world through science. The idea is that we human beings are in a finite, limited position in relation to the larger World around us. We can find out about some phenomenon of our World, but even when we do, there's typically more than can still be found out about that same phenomenon and its other physical relations to the wider scale of larger and smaller phenomena.

I don't find the notion of "approximately true" useful because there is no way to determine the distance from the truth so there's nothing to compare for the "approximate" aspect of it. It is approximately true that the world is flat, it is a better approximation that it is round, and a better approximation that it is an oblate spheroid. But all of these may still be infinitely distant from the actual case. When we are comparing naturalist theories to naturalist theories, we can use such an approximate approach and make such distinctions. But when we're discussing the likelihood that naturalist theories are themselves true the usefulness of approximate truth vanishes.

 

[expos4ever]

Each side will interpret the evidence according to their heart's mandate, regardless of the evidential facts, with material justification being easily found for both viewpoints.

Really? You could use this reasoning to argue that the view that the moon is made of green cheese is on equal footing with the mainstream view about the composition of the moon.

Evolution is an established fact, by any reasonable standard. The longer the church remains in denial over this, the more out of touch with reality it will seem.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In a sense, but often it's not so much that there isn't critical thinking being applied but that there is too much optimism in reasoning itself. Necessary concessions for reasoning to proceed impinge on our ability to arrive at truth unassisted, but these concessions are ignored because there is a sense that unaided human reasoning is the only possible approach to truth.

I totally agree with that.

But science doesn't really work on an individualist basis since it's supposed to be a community affair rather than a one man show.

 

[Fervent]

I totally agree with that.

But science doesn't really work on an individualist basis since it's supposed to be a community affair rather than a one man show.

Individualist or cumulative, science presumes that we can begin with nothing and end up at the truth. When in reality there are implicit assumptions that are taken for granted and vanished through consensus. Genuine epistemic challenges are basically shrugged off without answer, because it is necessary to shrug them off in order to proceed with our reasoning. As Scripture says, "Thinking themselves wise, they become as fools."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not that agnosticism itself is a blanket epistemic view, or a worldview in itself. It's that agnosticism is little more than a cop-out for atheists to deny that they are making a claim about the status of God's existence. To believe that it is unlikely for God not to exist is not agnosticism, especially when that belief is based on a standard of evidential support. If someone were truly agnostic, they wouldn't be able to set aside skeptical propositions like that there exists an omnipotent malevolent being that is deceiving them into all of their ordinary beliefs about reality. What agnosticism typically does is hide an epistemic approach that renders it impossible to demonstrate God's existence.

I think you're misrepresenting an entire gamut of issues within Epistemology in order to make this assertion. On my part, when I say that I don't directly "perceive" causation or indicia or clearly strong evidences of God's Presence in the Universe or World we live in, or that I can only see it on only the minutest of inferences, then I'm not intending to be merely gesticulating an obstinancy to be faced with claims of evidence. On some level, I can empathize with atheists, agnostics and extreme skeptics, which is why I posit that I am an Existentialist. The caveat to this is that I fully realize that from my overall education, I can still make methodoligical choices and, also, scrutinize those choices.

More over, evidences are always open to and influenced by the application of Hermeneutics and one's spatio-temporal, and cultural situatedness in the world. And what's more, the so-called "sufficiency of evidence" categorization that some folks make---and they can be either atheists or theists---isn't an utterly objective category of perception or demonstration. No one always has a final, purely objective word on what is "sufficient evidence" for positing justified true beliefs for any and all phenomena.

So, I think you may be putting too much emphasis on Descartes' problem of the "tricky demon/god." And I don't really think so-called agnosticism is of the epistemic, comprehensive nature as you're making it out to be here.

I don't find the notion of "approximately true" useful because there is no way to determine the distance from the truth so there's nothing to compare for the "approximate" aspect of it. It is approximately true that the world is flat, it is a better approximation that it is round, and a better approximation that it is an oblate spheroid. But all of these may still be infinitely distant from the actual case. When we are comparing naturalist theories to naturalist theories, we can use such an approximate approach and make such distinctions. But when we're discussing the likelihood that naturalist theories are themselves true the usefulness of approximate truth vanishes.

I think you're distending the referent within the meaning of "approximate" in a way that makes it much denotatively looser than anyone in science actually uses it. As we know, there is a difference between a colloquial semantic referent and a scientifically conceptualized one. For instance, there is difference between the term "theory" on a colloquial level and that of a "scientific theory." The former refers to an instance where a person is making a guess as to an explanation for some phenomena; the latter is an explanation that is supposed to be born our from the applications of critical thinking and methodlogical testing, in peer reviewed and repeatable fashion over a substantial amount of time.

So, in the case where "approximation" is being used to describe the characteristics of scientific findings, a scientific approximation (or provisional truth) is, and should be, one that is necessarily more objectively robust in its explanatory power than merely an "approximation" made on a colloquial level.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Individualist or cumulative, science presumes that we can begin with nothing and end up at the truth.

Where do you get this idea?

When in reality there are implicit assumptions that are taken for granted and vanished through consensus. Genuine epistemic challenges are basically shrugged off without answer, because it is necessary to shrug them off in order to proceed with our reasoning. As Scripture says, "Thinking themselves wise, they become as fools."

There is no "when in reality" in this case. None of us has that sort of "final, absolute position" where all of Reality is concerned, even where we may think biblical reality impinges upon our perception of the modern world. And there are, and will remain, indeed, some genuine epistemic challenges that no one will hurdle over.

If one of those epistemic challenges comes down to remaining as an unbeliever in Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of the World, this perceptual and psychological response among skeptics/atheists/ex-christians isn't always and absolutely explainable by merely pointing to Paul in the first and second chapter of Romans and thinking that in doing so, we're somehow "proving" the epistemic failure of those same skeptics/atheists/ex-christians in all cases. I think it's a fallacy to assert that we've presented an absolute explanation of why people are either agnostic or skeptical of the Bible merely because we think, "Well, Paul said so and thereby God said so, therefore... we have our top-down presupposition by which to arbitrate any and every just judgment of other people's epistemic failures to have belief and faith."

 

[Fervent]

I think you're misrepresenting an entire gamut of issues within Epistemology in order to make this assertion. On my part, when I say that I don't directly "perceive" causation or indicia or clearly strong evidences of God's Presence in the Universe or World we live in, or that I can only see it on only the minutest of inferences, then I'm not intending to be merely gesticulating an obstinancy to be faced with claims of evidence. On some level, I can empathize with atheists, agnostics and extreme skeptics, which is why I posit that I am an Existentialist. The caveat to this is that I fully realize that from my overall education, I can still make methodoligical choices and, also, scrutinize those choices.

More over, evidences are always open to and influenced by the application of Hermeneutics and one's spatio-temporal, and cultural situatedness in the world. And what's more, the so-called "sufficiency of evidence" categorization that some folks make---and they can be either atheists or theists---isn't an utterly objective category of perception or demonstration. No one always has a final, purely objective word on what is "sufficient evidence" for positing justified true beliefs for any and all phenomena.

So, I think you may be putting too much emphasis on Descartes' problem of the "tricky demon/god." And I don't really think so-called agnosticism is of the epistemic, comprehensive nature as you're making it out to be here.

I don't believe I am, though I may be stressing the roots of agnosticism beyond their ordinary usage. But typically, when someone says they are "agnostic" they are speaking a shorthand for "agnostic atheist." rather than a pure agnostic. Agnosticism would entail that there is no knowledge-basis to determine whether or not God is existant, as a strong position it would require denial of the possibility but as a weak position it would be an empty claim. But it is commonly used to conceal the claim that is actually made in atheism, with whatever strength that claim is made by the person stating it. It is used to shield the claim "there is no god" from scrutiny, by absolving it of being a claim of knowledge.

And I don't believe I am putting too much emphasis on the Cartesian trickster-god, because an agnostic would have no basis to believe that such a god does not exist. The implication of which extends to all gods worthy of being called supernatural in the strictest sense.

I think you're distending the referent within the meaning of "approximate" in a way that makes it much denotatively looser than anyone in science actually uses it. As we know, there is a difference between a colloquial semantic referent and a scientifically conceptualized one. For instance, there is difference between the term "theory" on a colloquial level and that of a "scientific theory." The former refers to an instance where a person is making a guess as to an explanation for some phenomena; the latter is an explanation that is supposed to be born our from the applications of critical thinking and methodlogical testing, in peer reviewed and repeatable fashion over a substantial amount of time.

In such a precise and technical form, the qualifier "approximate" serves little value. It can distinguish one naturalistic theory from another, but it fails to overcome the objections raised by antirealists by either being too weak through specificity or begging the question entirely.

So, in the case where "approximation" is being used to describe the characteristics of scientific findings, a scientific approximation (or provisional truth) is, and should be, one that is necessarily more objectively robust in its explanatory power than merely an "approximation" made on a colloquial level.

Which is fine when we're distinguishing between one scientific theory or another, but not when we're discussing how to interpret the instrumental success of science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't believe I am, though I may be stressing the roots of agnosticism beyond their ordinary usage. But typically, when someone says they are "agnostic" they are speaking a shorthand for "agnostic atheist." rather than a pure agnostic. Agnosticism would entail that there is no knowledge-basis to determine whether or not God is existant, as a strong position it would require denial of the possibility but as a weak position it would be an empty claim. But it is commonly used to conceal the claim that is actually made in atheism, with whatever strength that claim is made by the person stating it. It is used to shield the claim "there is no god" from scrutiny, by absolving it of being a claim of knowledge.

On that part, I can agree with you. But from my angle, I would just chalk up such a form of stiff agnosticism to a refusal to look at further facts, further forms of evidences, additional methods and/or praxes, or for that matter, to simply engage robust sources that they have heretofore not engaged.

An instance of this is the fact that in several years of having a book list placed on CF, I haven't seen a single person take one single source listed, engage it, read it and attempt to throughly refute it to me. No one's doing that. And I have a difficult time believing its "simply" because they haven't gotten around to it. No, it's usually because they want a particular "EPISTEMIC FORM" of Christianity to be true............or bust. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and my sources, my viewport, my worldview doesn't allow anyone, even myself, to default to that epistemic position. There is no "Genie-In-A-Bottle-Jesus," and I'm only more than happy to make that known.... to everyone. The problem is that that is exactly the sort of Jesus so many people want. They want the Jesus who is going to hand them "bread" with not only no strings attached, but who vividly and easily leads them to Vegas Level Prosperity written large in big Neon Signs. When they don't get this epistemic form of Jesus, they bust. And that leads directly into the Secular world we now live in.

Sorry folks! That's not the historic perception, nor the reality of ANY Jesus I can conceive of as being possibly 'real.'

Likewise---and here's the upshot in this epistemic, existential position that I hold----I don't expect the same from science either. Modern science isn a pragmatic pie-in the sky, self-propelling dynamo that will achieve liberating, transhuman progess, guaranteed. I don't expect it to work that way, and when it makes promises that it inevitably will given enough time, I swear I smell an epistemic rat.

And I don't believe I am putting too much emphasis on the Cartesian trickster-god, because an agnostic would have no basis to believe that such a god does not exist. The implication of which extends to all gods worthy of being called supernatural in the strictest sense.

From my experience, agnostics are simply people who feel they haven't had their questions answered yet the way they want them to be answered. There can be many reasons, though, contributing to their peceived feelings on this.

In such a precise and technical form, the qualifier "approximate" serves little value. It can distinguish one naturalistic theory from another, but it fails to overcome the objections raised by antirealists by either being too weak through specificity or begging the question entirely.

Which is fine when we're distinguishing between one scientific theory or another, but not when we're discussing how to interpret the instrumental success of science.

I'm not a big fan of Pragmatism. Let's just agree that Science has Limits and that a lot of people don't seem to recognize this or ... believe it.

Beyond this, we're just bantering and I'd much rather engage the specific articulations of various PhD level theorists than play my own "version" of Philo-Hockey.

 

[Fervent]

Where do you get this idea?

I was a bit careless with how I phrased that, because "science does X" is never going to be a true statement. But the popular image of science pushed by science popularizers encourages people to believe that science doesn't depend on assumptions, that it is just taking brute facts and observations at face value.

There is no "when in reality" in this case. None of us has that sort of "final, absolute position" where all of Reality is concerned, even where we may think biblical reality impinges upon our perception of the modern world. And there are, and will remain, indeed, some genuine epistemic challenges that no one will hurdle over.

Fair enough, though this seems to strengthen rather than weaken what I am saying. My position is one of a pessimistic epistemic skepticism, of sorts. Faith before reason, with reason's primary usage being seeking understanding from a faith that is already present. What I object to is not the employment of scientific methods and a pragmatic approach to scientific truth, but to what is essentially a faith in human cognitive faculties.

If one of those epistemic challenges comes down to remaining as an unbeliever in Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of the World, this perceptual and psychological response among skeptics/atheists/ex-christians isn't always and absolutely explainable by merely pointing to Paul in the first and second chapter of Romans and thinking that in doing so, we're somehow "proving" the epistemic failure of those same skeptics/atheists/ex-christians in all cases. I think it's a fallacy to assert that we've presented an absolute explanation of why people are either agnostic or skeptical of the Bible merely because we think, "Well, Paul said so and thereby God said so, therefore... we have our top-down presupposition by which to arbitrate any and every just judgment of other people's epistemic failures to have belief and faith."

It seems to me to go beyond simply what Paul said, but also to what is said in John 3:19 and Jeremiah. It's been my experience that the perceptual and psychological responses are window dressing in many of my conversations/debates with atheists. That is, of course, not to say that it is always the case that someone's atheism comes from such a place, but that there is often more self-deception about the motives that lie beneath our objections. But more often than not, when dug deep epistemic objections to faith are excuses for what the true impediment is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was a bit careless with how I phrased that, because "science does X" is never going to be a true statement. But the popular image of science pushed by science popularizers encourages people to believe that science doesn't depend on assumptions, that it is just taking brute facts and observations at face value.

Fair enough, though this seems to strengthen rather than weaken what I am saying. My position is one of a pessimistic epistemic skepticism, of sorts. Faith before reason, with reason's primary usage being seeking understanding from a faith that is already present. What I object to is not the employment of scientific methods and a pragmatic approach to scientific truth, but to what is essentially a faith in human cognitive faculties.

It seems to me to go beyond simply what Paul said, but also to what is said in John 3:19 and Jeremiah. It's been my experience that the perceptual and psychological responses are window dressing in many of my conversations/debates with atheists. That is, of course, not to say that it is always the case that someone's atheism comes from such a place, but that there is often more self-deception about the motives that lie beneath our objections. But more often than not, when dug deep epistemic objections to faith are excuses for what the true impediment is.

.... it sounds like we have a little bit of convergence now in our evaluations. I think we're similar here but just coming at it from different epistemic angles.

 

[Fervent]

On that part, I can agree with you. But from my angle, I would just chalk up such a form of stiff agnosticism to a refusal to look at further facts, further forms of evidences, additional methods and/or praxes, or for that matter, to simply engage robust sources that they have heretofore not engaged.

Fair enough.

An instance of this is the fact that in several years of having a book list placed on CF, I haven't seen a single person take it one single source listed, engage it, read it and attempt to throughly refute it to me. No one's doing that. And I have a difficult time believing its "simply" because they haven't gotten around to it. No, it's usually because they want a particular "EPISTEMIC FORM" of Christianity to be true............or bust. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and my sources, my viewport, my worldview doesn't allow anyone, even myself, to default to that epistemic position. There is no "Genie-In-A-Bottle-Jesus," and I'm only more than happy to make that known.... to everyone. The problem is that that is exactly the sort of Jesus so many people want. They want the Jesus who is going to hand them "bread" with not only no strings attached, but who vividly and easily leads them to Vegas Level Prosperity written large in big Neon Signs. When they don't get this epistemic form of Jesus, they bust. And that leads directly into the Secular world we now live in.

Amen.

Sorry folks! That's not the historic perception, nor the reality of ANY Jesus I can conceive of as being possibly 'real.'

Nor I.

Likewise---and here's the upshot in this epistemic, existential position that I hold----I don't expect the same from science either. Modern science isn a pragmatic pie-in the sky, self-propelling dynamo that will achieve liberating, transhuman progess, guaranteed. I don't expect it to work that way, and when it makes promises that it inevitably will given enough time, I swear I smell an epistemic rat.

Which speaks to where my objection truly lies. It's not that science as an epistemic tool is bad in any way, but that there is a false credibility given to scientists when speaking on philosophical issues that are dressed as scientific commentary. Too many epistemic rats are given the time of day because they show an excellence in research.

From my experience, agnostics are simply people who feel they haven't had their questions answered yet the way they want them to be answered. There can be many reasons, though, contributing to their peceived feelings on this.

From my experience, it's much more of a mixed bag. From the epistemically lazy who simply go with the status quo, to people who simply haven't had their questions about God answer, to people who are strong atheists who use agnosticism as a hidey hole to engage in burden shifting.

I'm not a big fan of Pragmatism. Let's just agree that Science has Limits and that a lot of people don't seem to recognize this or ... believe it.

I'm using it in a less-than-technical way. I'm not a pragmatist, though I am pragmatic. I'm a skeptic, or a fideist, depending on your point of view,

Beyond this, we're just bantering and I'd much rather engage the specific articulations of various PhD level theorists than play my own "version" of Philo-Hockey.

I prefer engaging in discourse rather than engaging with PhD level theorists, as more often than not PhD level theorists are arguing over minutiae or segmenting things to a degree that I don't see as justified.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fair enough.

Amen.

Nor I.

Which speaks to where my objection truly lies. It's not that science as an epistemic tool is bad in any way, but that there is a false credibility given to scientists when speaking on philosophical issues that are dressed as scientific commentary. Too many epistemic rats are given the time of day because they show an excellence in research.

From my experience, it's much more of a mixed bag. From the epistemically lazy who simply go with the status quo, to people who simply haven't had their questions about God answer, to people who are strong atheists who use agnosticism as a hidey hole to engage in burden shifting.

I'm using it in a less-than-technical way. I'm not a pragmatist, though I am pragmatic. I'm a skeptic, or a fideist, depending on your point of view,

I prefer engaging in discourse rather than engaging with PhD level theorists, as more often than not PhD level theorists are arguing over minutiae or segmenting things to a degree that I don't see as justified.

Agreed. (Except for that little 'ding' at the end about engaging with PhD level theorists). On this last point, I'm just going to posit that what I "mean" by such engagement may be a little different that what you have in mind. But whatever the case may be...... my wife is telling me it's time to eat! So, it's been good talking to you, Fervent!

Stay Fervent!