Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Fervent]

Your initial claim was that our "theoretical understandings boil down to consensus and nothing more". I showed that to be incorrect by citing an example of a theoretical understanding being validated by producing consistent, tangible, useful results.

Deal with that as you please.

Your example doesn't challenge my statement, though. What you've shown is you don't understand what I meant by that statement.

Yeah people tend to be impressed by things that improve, or even save their lives.

Peace and safety! Conflating the theoretical models with the predictive success of the methods employed doesn't really do much to speak to the truth of them. It's a necessary condition, but there is more required to move towards truth.

Those sorts of mental exercises mostly only matter to the philosophically minded. And like I said earlier, philosophers have been going round and round about those things for thousands of years, but apparently with no resolution or progress.

Philosophy is unavoidable, the questiion is only whether we're going to actively challenge the philosophies we employ or if we are going to passively adopt one.

Moving the goalposts (see above).

Nope, goalposts are still exactly where they've been. The explanatory gap between phenomenal description and ontological understanding. The notion that usefulness implies truth.

Then take your case to the general public.

Does the general public not frequent message boards? Why do you think I'm discussing it on a Christian forum?

At this point mostly because it's gotten kinda funny.

Okay.

 

[River Jordan]

Your example doesn't challenge my statement, though. What you've shown is you don't understand what I meant by that statement.

Peace and safety! Conflating the theoretical models with the predictive success of the methods employed doesn't really do much to speak to the truth of them. It's a necessary condition, but there is more required to move towards truth.

Philosophy is unavoidable, the questiion is only whether we're going to actively challenge the philosophies we employ or if we are going to passively adopt one.

Nope, goalposts are still exactly where they've been. The explanatory gap between phenomenal description and ontological understanding. The notion that usefulness implies truth.

Does the general public not frequent message boards? Why do you think I'm discussing it on a Christian forum?

Okay.

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

 

[Fervent]

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

What opinions have I shared? All I've supplied is argumentation, not mere opinions. My positions on these questions is irrelevant to the questions themselves.

 

[BCP1928]

What opinions have I shared? All I've supplied is argumentation, not mere opinions. My positions on these questions is irrelevant to the questions themselves.

It's your motive that's questionable.

 

[Fervent]

It's your motive that's questionable.

What does my motive have to do with anything? Do motives change arguments in some substantive manner? Questioning my motives is nothing more than an ad hominem.

 

[BCP1928]

What does my motive have to do with anything? Do motives change arguments in some substantive manner? Questioning my motives is nothing more than an ad hominem.

OK, so you come here to a Christian chatroom to raise a philosophical issue about science for the benefit of the general public, to whom it is of no practical importance. I suppose that's as good a hobby as any.

 

[Fervent]

OK, so you come here to a Christian chatroom to raise a philosophical issue about science for the benefit of the general public, to whom it is of no practical importance. I suppose that's as good a hobby as any.

It seems to me to be of critical importance, for its apologetic value. The lazily embedded metaphysics in science presents an obstacle for some people to commit to faith, because there is little recognition that what science produces is not statements of truth or falsity but mechanical descriptions of phenomenal behavior. If we recognize the fictitious manner of the scientific enterprise as building a model, then arguments skeptics employ based on science lose their force because the Christian can accept science at face value without accepting the metaphysical elements. My motives is to confront false promises and combat man made idols. Philosophy and science are just tools for inquiring, and each serves a purpose.

 

[BCP1928]

It seems to me to be of critical importance, for its apologetic value. The lazily embedded metaphysics in science presents an obstacle for some people to commit to faith, because there is little recognition that what science produces is not statements of truth or falsity but mechanical descriptions of phenomenal behavior. If we recognize the fictitious manner of the scientific enterprise as building a model, then arguments skeptics employ based on science lose their force because the Christian can accept science at face value without accepting the metaphysical elements. My motives is to confront false promises and combat man made idols. Philosophy and science are just tools for inquiring, and each serves a purpose.

I'm not sure it's as much of an issue as you think. Science can only be used by skeptics against falsifiable claims. The proposition that God exists and is the author of our being is not empirically falsifiable.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not sure it's as much of an issue as you think. Science can only be used by skeptics against falsifiable claims. The proposition that God exists and is the author of our being is not empirically falsifiable.

It certainly seems to be a major sticking point, since so many seem to be under the impression that science in some way proves(or disproves) God. Just about every atheist I've gotten into discussions with brings up science and its successes as evidence against God, and it is because of a philosophy that is smuggled into science by way of the definitons that are used. Philosophy isn't about thinking for the sake of thinking or speculation about what might be, it's about challenging how we think about things so that we think better and are clearer in what we are saying. The combination of philosophy aversion and the predictive success of science allows for bad arguments in favor of atheism like the argument from ignorance or the argument from popular opinion to hold persuasive force.

 

[BCP1928]

It certainly seems to be a major sticking point, since so many seem to be under the impression that science in some way proves(or disproves) God. Just about every atheist I've gotten into discussions with brings up science and its successes as evidence against God, and it is because of a philosophy that is smuggled into science by way of the definitons that are used. Philosophy isn't about thinking for the sake of thinking or speculation about what might be, it's about challenging how we think about things so that we think better and are clearer in what we are saying. The combination of philosophy aversion and the predictive success of science allows for bad arguments in favor of atheism like the argument from ignorance or the argument from popular opinion to hold persuasive force.

That has certainly not been my experience of atheists, in forums like this one or in the wider world. In this forum, as an example, the existence of God per se has never been an issue. Our present group of atheists express their disbelief in God, but do not challenge it in others. Scientific skepticism is directed instead toward biblical creationism. In fact, I think your impression of atheism has been shaped more by creationists who insist that rejecting biblical creationism is rejecting God altogether than by atheists themselves. In the words of Henry Morris, founder of the modern creationist movement, "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God."

 

[dlamberth]

That has certainly not been my experience of atheists, in forums like this one or in the wider world. In this forum, as an example, the existence of God per se has never been an issue. Our present group of atheists express their disbelief in God, but do not challenge it in others. Scientific skepticism is directed instead toward biblical creationism. In fact, I think your impression of atheism has been shaped more by creationists who insist that rejecting biblical creationism is rejecting God altogether than by atheists themselves. In the words of Henry Morris, founder of the modern creationist movement, "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God."

And than there's us Lovers of God who also reject Biblical creationism. Are we being grouped with those who reject God concepts?

 

[AV1611VET]

And than there's us Lovers of God who also reject Biblical creationism.

In your case, it depends on who God is.


(No offense.)

Are we being grouped with those who reject God concepts?

Shouldn't you be?

 

[dlamberth]

In your case, it depends on who God is.

It's a God who is not deceptive with things like embedded age.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a God who is not deceptive with things like embedded age.

What's His name?

 

[dlamberth]

What's His name?

The creator has many names, being of infinite possibilities and all. But for this instance with you, Yahweh.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yahweh.

 

[Fervent]

That has certainly not been my experience of atheists, in forums like this one or in the wider world.

Well, that is what it is.

In this forum, as an example, the existence of God per se has never been an issue.

I wonder how much of that is simply putting on a polite face. My experience with atheists is that they believe their worldview is built upon solid evidence and while they may tolerate people holding faith in private, they do not want to see it expressed in public.

Our present group of atheists express their disbelief in God, but do not challenge it in others.

My concern isn't with scientific atheists per se, but more with people who have some measure of belief but think that their options are between mindlessly going along with a literal reading of Genesis or tossing aside the Bible for an amorphous God with little trustworthy information about Him.

Scientific skepticism is directed instead toward biblical creationism.

Depends on what we mean by "scientific skepticism"...because the whole basis of naturalism is that there is no intervention from outside of the universe. A deist god or some vague pantheism or panentheism may be able to be accomodated in such a view, but not one that sustains creation and intervenes wherever He wishes including His full revelation in the incarnation.

In fact, I think your impression of atheism has been shaped more by creationists who insist that rejecting biblical creationism is rejecting God altogether than by atheists themselves.

My experience with atheists begins from when I was barely a Christian and basically followed along unquestioningly with anything I was taught in a science classroom. My experience comes from mockery like the flying spagghetti monster, strawmen like Russel's teapot, declarations that God is a moral monster, etc. Is every atheist like this? No, but there is a vocal confederation of these sorts of atheists and they tend to shake the faith of those who aren't sold out in one direction or another.

In the words of Henry Morris, founder of the modern creationist movement, "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God."

I understand why whenever discussion of Christianity and its relation to science always inevitably turns on questions of evolution, but I have no qualms with evolution or have no desire to enter in pseudoscientific artifices like ID or other unscientific approaches. My interest is deeper, in seeing science as a self-undermining idol just like the idols men of old built. My questions are epistemic and surround how we justify the scientific process, because to me atheism is a moral issue and not a matter of knowledge.

 

[BCP1928]

Well, that is what it is.

I wonder how much of that is simply putting on a polite face. My experience with atheists is that they believe their worldview is built upon solid evidence and while they may tolerate people holding faith in private, they do not want to see it expressed in public.

My concern isn't with scientific atheists per se, but more with people who have some measure of belief but think that their options are between mindlessly going along with a literal reading of Genesis or tossing aside the Bible for an amorphous God with little trustworthy information about Him.

That would be the fault of Evangelicai Protestantism for presenting Christianity as offering only those two options. My own opinions is that it is an error growing out of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura

Depends on what we mean by "scientific skepticism"...because the whole basis of naturalism is that there is no intervention from outside of the universe. A deist god or some vague pantheism or panentheism may be able to be accomodated in such a view, but not one that sustains creation and intervenes wherever He wishes including His full revelation in the incarnation.

Yes, an atheist would deny supernatural intervention on the level of contingent causality, here again, it is creationists who are largely responsible for blurring the distinction between methodological and metaphysical materialism in the public mind--a distinction made clear in the philosophy of science class that all science majors had to take back in my day. Maybe it's not a requirement any more, who knows?

--a distinction made clear --My experience with atheists begins from when I was barely a Christian and basically followed along unquestioningly with anything I was taught in a science classroom. My experience comes from mockery like the flying spagghetti monster, strawmen like Russel's teapot, declarations that God is a moral monster, etc. Is every atheist like this? No, but there is a vocal confederation of these sorts of atheists and they tend to shake the faith of those who aren't sold out in one direction or another.

I understand why whenever discussion of Christianity and its relation to science always inevitably turns on questions of evolution, but I have no qualms with evolution or have no desire to enter in pseudoscientific artifices like ID or other unscientific approaches. My interest is deeper, in seeing science as a self-undermining idol just like the idols men of old built. My questions are epistemic and surround how we justify the scientific process, because to me atheism is a moral issue and not a matter of knowledge.

Well, you can't paint all scientists that color. There are too many Christians and people of other faiths involved with it.

 

[Fervent]

That would be the fault of Evangelicai Protestantism for presenting Christianity as offering only those two options. My own opinions is that it is an error growing out of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura

I agree that sola scriptura has done a great deal of damage to Christian intellectuallism, but groups such as the "new atheists" have done a pretty good job of making it appear as if atheism is a scientifically established fact.

Yes, an atheist would deny supernatural intervention on the level of contingent causality, here again, it is creationists who are largely responsible for blurring the distinction between methodological and metaphysical materialism in the public mind--a distinction made clear in the philosophy of science class that all science majors had to take back in my day. Maybe it's not a requirement any more, who knows?

I'd imagine it varies from campus to campus, but my concern is more with secondary education rather than post-secondary. A general disregard of philosophy and the lazy adoption of metaphysical princples that are quite easiily smuggled into the natural sciences without criticism is a recipe for conflict between science and revealed religions.

Well, you can't paint all scientists that color. There are too many Christians and people of other faiths involved with it.

I'm not sure how you got the impression I was, because what I am aimed at is a consequence of a general disregard towards philosophy common among people who look to science to give their lives hope and meaning. As far as I'm concerned, the scientific project is just a modern day tower of babel. Though I do understand why it has a certain appeal especially within "western" cultures.

 

[dlamberth]

What's His name?

For myself anyway, it's not about the name, it's about having God as ones reality, today. That happens through Love, Compassion and helping those in need.