Methodological Atheism of Science

[_marg]

Attacking science, scientists, scientific method, scientific theories essentially with strawman arguments is not an argument which supports or warrants a claim for the existence of a God or Gods.

The scientific method works as far as developing theories which explain the phenomena observed in our world as we perceive it and no criticism of it can take that away from it. Scientific theories offer predictive value and the fact that predictions bear out as expected and observed is all the value one needs to obtain from science and it be useful.

[_Gadianton]

Materialism is the belief that material reality is the only reality. There is no seperately existing mental or spiritual reality. Of course, people are conscious and have thoughts and perhaps even spiritul experiences, but this can be understood as only the workings of the neurons in their material brains. The mental and spiritual are presumed to be mere epiphenomena of the material.

Niether Dennett, Pinker, or Dawkins are epiphenominalists. Epiphenominalism is dualism and he's contradicting himself here by saying that material reality is the only reality and there is also an epiphenomenal world. Epiphenominalism is not popular at all among athiests, I'd imagine that especially holds true of "new atheists". Dennett and Pinker at least are "New Rationalists". They reject the belief that mental life reduces to neurons, therefore they are not reductive materialists. Shocking, I know.

By the way, I know of a number of Mormons who claim to be materialists. Kevin Winters, who once presented at the SMPT (where I will be presenting shortly) defending "Mormon materialism". There are a lot of varying philosophical positions amongst believers and non-believers alike and it's very hard to make clear distinctions between the deep-structures of their positions.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Are these assumptions valid? I wil examine the second one in a subsequent chapter. But consider the first premise, that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge.

Don't blame the atheists. This principle was invented by a devout Lutheran named Immanuel Kant.

Devout Lutheran or no, I can't stand that clown. His ghost is conjured up almost every time I mention Gödel's Ontological Argument to an atheist, even though he is not at all relevant.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Now, you're pretty stupid, and you probably won't understand why this is important, so I'll give you a hint: you're the puddle, bub.

Actually, the analogy is stupid and you are stupid for reproducing it. You wouldn't happen to have a worthless philosophy degree, would you?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Actually, the analogy is stupid and you are stupid for reproducing it.

You should show the analogy to be stupid instead of (or, at least, before) simply declaring it so.

You wouldn't happen to have a worthless philosophy degree, would you?

No, I have a worthless Political Science degree. But hey, that's why they invented law school, right?

[Guest]

Devout Lutheran or no, I can't stand that clown. His ghost is conjured up almost every time I mention Gödel's Ontological Argument to an atheist, even though he is not at all relevant.

The ontological argument doesn't purport to prove anything except a pantheistic God, which is not really a god at all. I'm not really familiar with Godel's argument specifically, so I don't know if it has the same problems of St. Anselm's argument, but if it does, then they are considerable.

[_dartagnan]

Marg, I'm not attacking the scientific method, I'm counting on it. Unfortunately, nobody here can explain what scientific method was used to argue many of the assumptions made by modern science.

I'm familiar with D'Souza's line of thinking. I might have seen the article before -- at the very least, I've read an article by D'Souza on this topic, even if it's not this one specifically.

JSM, just keep making excuses for your ignorance and failure to comprehend. You babble against that which you do not understand. If the post was read, there is no way anyone, even you, would have responded the way you did. You responded before I read half way through it, looking for typos. The next thing I know you posted a bunch of pithy straw men.

As the saying goes, it is better to remain silent and appear the fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Those scientists are confident that science will prove them right. If science indeed presumed atheism, then those scientists wouldn't care about using science to disprove religion, now would they, you stupid f***?

You don't know what you're talking about, as exhibited by your increasing frustration. You're just a typical cocky student, confident in his atheism and now pissed off that so many distinguished scientists have blathered the way they have, undermining so many of your assumptions, so you're trying to make excuses for them even though they don't want you to. Forget it. They have spoken. They Trump whatever authority you think you have.

This makes perfect sense. You said that science precluded spirituality; I provided an example of how spirituality could be accommodated by science, if it existed. I showed that your dunderheaded assertion about science was wrong.

You showed no such thing other than your ignorance on the subject. Miracles are not predictable, therefore they are not testable using any modern scientific method, period. You do what Dawkins does, because that's all you know apparently. You both embarrass yourelves by insisting religion and religious claims can and must be tested on your terms. You're even willing to misrepresent spirituality in the same way he is willing to misrepresent every aspect of religious faith.

Incidentally, I was watching a debate between Dawkins and a Bishop last night and Dawkins started tearing down this straw man attacking the Bible, insisting it should be interpreted literally, even though centuries of biblical scholarship has rendered most of it metaphorical. He asked the bishop, "How do you know it is metaphor and poetic?" in reference to Genesis. I wanted the guy to scream outloud, "how do you know it isn't?" But the guy just looked at him like the fool he is, because Dawkins is not interested in learning facts that undermine his agenda. He's read virtually nothing on the topic. He ignores centuries of biblical scholarship to his own detriment. You're just a minature version of the same character.

Fine, then -- insert "prayer alone" wherever I said "prayer" above. Now do you get it? I'm not holding my breath.

Huh? How many times will you show an incapacity to comprehend? I said prayer alone doesn't make miracles, so how the hell will "inserting" prayer alone somehow make your case that spiritulity can be tested?

Wow, dartagnan gave an arrogant non-response! Holy s***, am I surprised.

What exactly does the God hypothesis explain, and why doesn't this explanation fit in the paradigm of modern science, idiot?

I've explained this on numerous occassions and I have even tried to solve your comprehension deficiency by posting the same explanations by authors who write with far more eloquence than I. And yet you insist on playing the ignorance card. I guess this is to be expected by a sciolist.

No, they begin with an anti-stupidity premise, which I suspect is why you're having such a problem with it, you twit.

You still can't come to grips with the citations I provided can you? You don't get it. The bomb has already gone off. These scientists have already drawn us a picture of what's going on. They have a better understanding of modern science than an arrogant kid like you ever will. So who do you think you're kidding?

That God exists? Which one? What characteristics does He possess that we can determine because of Big Bang research?

Here you are again trying to ignore the evidence by using the typical derailment techniques offered by Dawkins. What your mind is to small to understand is that the evidence proves a divine intelligence at work and scientists have acknolwedged this.

Did you get that?

Let me repeat.

Scientists have already acknolwedged this. So my point is established. This is strong scientific evidence for the existences of a creator. Stephen Hawking made it perfectly clear that it is reasonable to assume a creator if the universe has a beginning. Science proved the universe has a beginning. This means strong evidence for God. Case closed. A child can understand this simple deductive logic.

Scientists have proved the force of this evidence by their strong reaction to it. So why should anything you have to say to the contrary matter? We're talking about what prominent scientists are assuming today in modern science, not what cocky atheistic die-hards are trying to reinvent from thin air. Nothing you can conjure up in that tiny mind of yours will matter. The point is established.

Now go cry in your corner and figure out some new names to call me.

Hawking understands it, and so do the other scientists he mentioned. You and Dawkins make a big deal over something ("which one?") that clearly didn't phase the numerous scientists who were hell bent on denying the Big Bang. You don't see them taking comfort in this nonsense, and we know why.

Why is the God hypothesis superior to the null conclusion, that "We don't know"?

After months, you clearly don't have the necessary knowledge to argue the points let alone understand them. You don't understand the history of science and the argument from teleology. Is it mechanistic? Of course not. But that doesn't make it anti-science, it just makes it unscientific in the "modern" sense. And it says nothing about whether it is true or not. What I have proved here is that modern science operates on several assumptions that they cannot prove. Materialism is not proved, but it is the underlying premise. This is why idiots like Dennett are trying to explain consciousness as strictly material-based mechanistic processes in the brain. It is just an illusion for him because it needs to be. His version of science puts a straight-jacket on his understanding. The problem I have with these kinds of scientists is only this:

They make philosophical conclusions driven by their atheistic slant, and present them as "science" when it is no such thing. The nonsense of trying to explain why humans procreate is just one of many examples. Nobody here can provide the scientific method used to determine that it is a result of selfish genes manipulating the body to have sex. But Dawkins says so so it must be true, and every gullible parrot on this forum will relay the same dogma without ever questioning it.

Now, you're pretty stupid, and you probably won't understand why this is important, so I'll give you a hint: you're the puddle, bub.

Runt, you clearly don't understand the force of the argument, as the puddle comment is idiotic and doesn't even begin to grasp the multiplicity of necessary, mysterious coincidences that make life on earth possible. The argument is one that recently swayed career atheist Antony Flew, and has astronomers writing about its philsophical consequences right after left. But I don't expect you to read much outside evolution literature. That is yoru atheistic safety zone. You don't have the gonads to step outside and deal with the cosmological evidences as illustrated by John Leslie in "Universes."

Necessary for producing life as we know it, Cap'n, sure, but self-replicating entities altogether? The substrate-neutrality of the basic principles of natural selection suggests otherwise. Not that you'd understand what that means, s***-for-brains

The more you babble like this, the more you prove you haven't the faintest clue about the issues. Stop pretending you're qualified to speak informatively because you say you read an article once upon a time. You're not addressing the arguments because you are willfully ignorant of them. Natural Selection tells us nothing about the origin of life, and neither does evolution. Again, the atheist Francis Crick agrees with the theists who say the world did not exist long enough for life to create itself from random chemical reactions. At least he has the integrity to admit this, along with many other scientists. But unfortunately for you, his alternative explanation is that ET came along and planted the first cell on earth.

And in modern science, that's not worthy of ridicule, nor is the notion that a trillion universes exist, for the sole purpose of explaining away the anthropic principle, nor is Michael Ruse's hilarious argument that life began when cells "piggy-backed on crystals"!

You guys wax eloquently about evolution but the fact is the elephant in the room still proves just how little you really know. Evolution only takes us back to a point. How life began is not explained by modern science. You cannot even begin to explain how life originated by mechanistic processes, nor can you explain why gravity is what it is, or why the nuclear forces are what they are, or why the laws of the universes are mathematically intertwined. The only rational explanation is that this is by design. Theists accept all that science has proved, and atheistic scientists have proved they have shut their minds to the possibility that knowledge can be gained outside of science. You guys are the ones acting irrationally.

[_richardMdBorn]

Quantum Mechanics exhibits causation and predictability at a certain scope of its inquiry. Within this scope, it's science. Outside of that, I'd think that even people who make their living off of the field would agree with me that it is not.

Evidence please for your last sentence.

[_marg]

Marg, I'm not attacking the scientific method, I'm counting on it. Unfortunately, nobody here can explain what scientific method was used to argue many of the assumptions made by modern science.

Did you really address what I said because if you did I fail to see it.

Let's look at one line by the author you are quoting in which he is talking about science, the scientific method and scientists.

"Yet their statements raise the deeper questions: why are miracles and the supernatural ruled out of bounds at the outset? "

The author D'Souza is critical of scientists as being biased and yet what he proposes as a method is the epitome based on that line I quote above, of a method if one can call it that, of relying on bias and complete nonobjectivity... which is to accept assertions.. absent warrants to support.

It wouldn't be an objective methodology, if one could make assumptions of whatever one wished and it didn't have to be supported other than by merely asserting it. And yet that is exactly what the author is suggesting for claims for the supernatural and miracles.

The fact that miracles and the supernatural are unsupported with objective evidence is why they are described as miracles and the supernatural.

And one other point, claims to God or Gods offers no predictive value, a key hallmark of science. Science is useful, in appreciating how the world operates. Claims to God other than maybe offering psychological comfort to some people offers nothing else of use that I can see.

And so contrary to what your reply, the article you offered as reflective of your opinion did criticize the scientific method.

As far as your line "Unfortunately, nobody here can explain what scientific method was used to argue many of the assumptions made by modern science."

I don't know what your point is. There is essentially only one scientific method, in that theories explain and offer predictive value which can be tested or potentially tested. God claims or supernatural claims offer no predictive value, no understanding of how the world operates.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the SMPT (where I will be presenting shortly)

Really? What's your paper on?