Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 09/13/07 07:24:00 PM |
Age 37, NY |
Again, I've been away. I hope find this message. But concepts ARE real. And I think this may tie in to where all our discussions have reached thus far. Concepts are the recognition of patterns. Yes, on the mirco-level there is nothing more than chemical reactions beyond our control. But our brains have the ability to step back further and see larger patterns at work on a macro-level And together with our sensory organs we are able to label such patterns; dog, cat, blue, democracy etc., And in addition to this, a downward casualty is formed. Patterns can have causal potency. Think of a traffic jam. It has nothing to do with the firing of pistons under the hood of a car (micro-level) but instead with abstract concepts such as football game or accident (macro-level). Our pattern perceiving brain can also perceive itself and all the patterns it perceives—this in turn becomes another pattern. This internal loop is what we know as the Self, soul, or “I”. It is a natural phenomenon and it is not transcendental.
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/28/07 05:23:24 PM |
Age 45, AR |
Lets keep focus on the basics. I accept your definition of metaphysics, it is the branch of philosophy which deals with reality. But you have limited reality to nature. By doing so, you deny the reality of everything which is supra-natural. This includes everything ascribed to the non-physical world. You have limited reality to nature. You deny all transcendentals. Therefore, concepts, truth, universals, principles, knowledge, science, induction, deduction, laws, beauty, love, obligation, ethics, logic, reason, etc..., are not real. The nature which makes us think these are real may be real. Eg, the brain secretes thoughts like the liver secretes bile. But thoughts are naturalistically determined. They are not real in the sense that they do or do not correspond to truth. You do not believe in Christianity. Well, on your worldview, nature has predetermined your unbelief, just as nature has determined my belief. You think you prove things and make reasoned arguments, but those concepts are not real. They are merely byproducts of what nature produces. Brain gas. Your experience of reason is illusory. So, we are back to my major points. Atheists must destroy knowledge to get their arguments started. Atheists live in a confused, contradictory world of rationality/irrationality. Only God saves knowledge. Ergo, if knowledge, then God. And, your statement "the evidence for metaphysical naturalism is quite strong" is a nonsense statement. Evidence does not exist if nature is all there is. Evidence presupposes transcendentals such as truth, knowledge and proof which natural cannot account for. You commit the naturalistic fallacy. Thus, you believe the evidence for a world without evidence is quiet strong.
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/25/07 01:43:18 AM |
Age 37, NY |
I was merely trying to point out the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I'll continue. I didn't invent the term but I assume that it's based on metaphysics--the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of reality, being, and the world. Presumably, the metaphysical naturalist's explanation would be that of a natural nature. You're taking the term 'metaphysical' to mean--outside of nature, the spiritual, the supernatural--something to that effect. That is the wrong definition in this case. And yes, I reject the evidence for the Christian god (metaphysical supernaturalism) for the myriad reasons I have given you thus far. I also think the evidence for metaphysical naturalism is quite strong. In fact, if I were to presuppose it were true, the world we see might look very much as it does--more so than presupposing the Christian god. But as you know, I don't like to make such grand presuppositions.
|
Re: Re: Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/23/07 09:54:27 PM |
Age 45, AR |
Well stated. Of course, the Christian does claim evidence, God has revealed. You do not accept this. I understand. But, lets suspend that question momentarily and concentrate on "metaphysical naturalism". This is an oxymoron. Reality cannot be both wholly natural and wholly non-natural at the same time and in the same relationship. If this is what you believe, then you take irrationality as being basic. If on the other hand, you believe that the one reality is both metaphysical and natural, then you agree with the Christian conception of reality. The question then is how do we account for the non-physical. You know the Christian answer. What is your answer?
|
Re: Re: Truth in discovery
| Posted On: 08/22/07 04:50:55 PM |
Age 56, OR |
I do like your idea of more children being taught to think in our schools. Pity that so many educators are afraid to thwart the Humanist Manifesto (and loose their jobs/tenure) and DARE teach them to think science! My kids are BROWBEATEN to think EVOLUTION, even though it makes no sense to them. They would ask, "How did the egg evolve to survive to make a chicken, that became a hen that found a rooster and then laid an egg to make another chicken?". "Did God make trees, or seeds?". "Did God make trees that MADE seeds?"
"While the seeds were waiting to grow, did a chicken eat them?". "Where did the chickens roost before there were trees?" "How do you start off the slow evolution of an eye-ball. When does it begin to see?". "Doesn't every animal need working eyes right from the get-go so they can avoid being eaten?"
Sir, I am sorry to say that 'evolution' (not variance within kinds) requires too much faith for me to contemplate. As a created being, I can use innate rationale to observe what is "self evident" as the Apostle teaches. Creation really IS self evident. I would have to dumb-down my intellect to earth-worm stupor to begin to take on-board any of the evolution-humanist doctrines. Sincerely, PGW
|
Re: Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/22/07 12:42:13 PM |
Age 37, NY |
I agree that we use concepts to practice science (thoughts, principles, ethics, induction, causation, contiguity, correlativity, inference, regularity, etc...). Where do we acquire our ability to formulate concepts? The theist will claim that it comes from his particular god. Does he have evidence of this? No. The metaphysical naturalist will claim that the theist is incorrect in this claim because he believes there is no god. Does he have evidence of this? No. The methodological naturalist makes no claim either way because he only makes judgments by what he can observe and test through his limited abilities--this is a means by which knowledge is acquired--not a belief. So for whatever reason, we find ourselves equipped with the ability to form thoughts and concepts.
|
Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/21/07 11:53:34 AM |
Age 45, AR |
I need to respond separately to your charge that I am confusing metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. This is an odd complaint from a self-proclaimed, atheistic, naturalistic evolutionist. In your system, there is no division between metaphysical and methodological naturalism. You are a material monist. So why complain? Are you reduced to making moot points? Or, do you now assert the reality of the metaphysical? If you do, what becomes of science? By adopting methodological naturalism, science can only know the natural world. But, if you assert the reality of a metaphysical world in addition to the natural world then do we have two worlds or one? If one, then the one reality is both metaphysical and physical. But, your scientific method can only see the physical. Therefore, your scientific method can never see the real world. If two worlds, how do you explain that? How do you know there is a second world when your method only allows you to see the one, physical world? How do the two worlds relate? How do you know that what is real in the metaphysical world does not affect what you think you know about the physical world? Seems you just openned a can of worms for yourself.
|
Re: Re: Truth
| Posted On: 08/21/07 11:15:27 AM |
Age 45, AR |
Your comment that evolution is as basic as mathematics is telling. We do not induce mathematics from observing facts scientifically. We take math as an a priori, as being basic and necessarily true. You do the same with evolution. You take it as being basic, a necessary a priori. But, when you do so, you take evolution out of the realm of science and put it in the realm of philosophy, which frankly, is where it belongs. Evolution has nothing to do with the facts, it is a chosen a priori. That is, you do not induce evolution from the facts. Instead, you choose evolution as your a priori, then you use it as your Rosetta stone to interpret the facts. The problem is that when you take evolution (naturalism) as your a priori, you assume that all is contingent. You can never get necessity into a totally contingent universe. Evolution fails as a philosophy.
|
Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/20/07 09:14:07 PM |
Age 45, AR |
You are so wrong. Methodological naturalism excludes the supernatural, not science. Christians were doing science when your naturalistic ancestors were still running around in the woods, naked, with their bodies painted blue, worshipping trees. Science is just guessing and testing, observing and recording. And, on naturalistic presuppositions, science cannot exist. MN accepts only positivistic or naturalistic explanations. Problem, MN cannot be positivistically justified, it is a concept, not a percept. MN self-defeats. Concepts cannot be observed and tested, kind of like the supernatural. Give me science without concepts and without the immaterial (thoughts, principles, ethics, induction, causation, contiguity, correlativity, inferrence, regularity, etc...) if you are going to give me science as naturalism. The supernatural establishes science. Without it, science is not real. No pathway from your scientific beliefs to scientific knowledge and truth. Only the supernatural establishes the transcendentals needed to establish knowledge, truth, concepts, universals and everything else that is not material and is presupposed by science. Science presupposes much more than the material, it also presupposes the immaterial and the informational, neither of which your naturalism can account for.
|
Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/16/07 06:39:53 PM |
Age 37, NY |
By definition, science and the scientific method excludes the supernatural from the get go. Because it is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. If one observes some supernatural event and puts it to the scientific test and it passes, then it becomes natural or rather it always was natural. Likewise if one observes some event that can not be explained this would no doubt be because it is not observable, empirical and measurable. But keep in mind that if Saul of Tarsus saw an F-16 jet fighter, he might think it a supernatural event--it's all a matter of perspective. Methodological naturalism is consistent with science--it is science. I think you might be confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism--perhaps on purpose. When you claim that 72 AR is being childish, what you are really doing is singing along with Phillip E. Johnson's conclusion that creationists must REDEFINE science to restore the supernatural. Well then that is not science. By his own admission, it is not science. You people should stop calling it science. Call it theistic realism, pseudoscience, or whatever--but stop handing people these "wedges" and calling them science. It is not only wrong, it is infantile.
|
Re: Truth
| Posted On: 08/16/07 11:40:33 AM |
Age 72, AR |
Actually, evolution is just as basic as mathematics, and understanding of natural selection is no more difficult in its rudimentary workings than the times and squares tables I used for comparison. They have occured not one but multiple times, in exactly the same fashion, and are continuing today. The proof in evolution is that it has worked after every one of Earth's mass extinctions, not just during the periods of smooth continuity. It is not the teaching of demonstrably recurring phenomenon like evolution, natural selection, tectonics, climate, etc., etc., and their day-to-day, moment-to-moment applicability in ways that are entirely understandable in simple terms on up to complexities beyond most of us that is a problem in educating our young. It is deluding them with imaginary simplifications and confusing them with unfounded derisions of what they are being taught. The only thing that would be fair both to society and the child would be to wait until he is mature enough to understand, compare and choose for himself.
On the personal comment about my not wanting to be a scientist. I have been considered a scientist by scientists despite not having formal training and doing it only as a hobby until retirement. Your commentary overall illustrates the validity of the argument, with which more and more of my scientist friends are coming to agree, that even more than more practicing scientists we need for people in general to be more scientifically literate, to understand not every detail of every science but that those sciences and the technologies they spawn affect every modern life continually moment to moment.
|
Truth
| Posted On: 08/15/07 03:26:56 PM |
Age 56, OR |
Let me check this comment by you Sir.
"It is not a creed, it requires no belief, it is simply something to be learned like three times three is nine. Just as three squared also is nine, the ways to look at life on Earth, and maybe elsewhere is a continually expanding concept. The explanation should not be muddled or its developers and advocates ridiculed just because it and they are not universally understood. I am not a trained scientist but I do know a number of them, and a substantial percentage are believing, practicing Christians."
Three times three is practical, pragmatic, provable and BASIC. The 'stuff' you try to equate it with, namely evolution, is not.
You cannot and must not tell a child that evolution is just as plain as the three-times-table. If you do you will be held accountable for misleading one of God's little ones.
Your further statement implying that you know "christian" scientists that are also evolutioninst is definately an oxymoronic concept. The one mutually and without exception will exclude the other.
If you only 'know' of some scientists, but do not wish to become one, then that is sad. After all, C. Darwin was not a scientist. Furthermore, C.Darwin and a cohort stole most of the works of his father or grandfather I believe and published them his own. Additionally, I do not like the idea of, "...favoured races" being taught to my children in State funded 'educational' facilities. Sincerely, PGW
|
Re: Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/15/07 07:47:43 AM |
Age 45, AR |
Neither you nor Dawkins are really advocating science. That is the problem. You advocate methodological naturalism, call it science, then complain loudly when anyone attacks your naturalism that they are trying to take down science. That is not only wrong, that is childish.
|
Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/13/07 08:06:09 AM |
Age 46, IN |
I just finished reading Total Truth, so Kerby's article is very timely for me. It is a challenging read, but I second the recommendation. The church has given in to the public/private split spelled out in the book, with disastrous results. We have given the fields of science, history, literature, and other social studies over to the naturalists in exchange for tax-exempt Sunday morning religious meetings. Our children have a difficult time believing God's Word because we send such a conflicting message regarding origins. We treat the subject of origins as a *minor* issue, when it is truly foundational. We accept the precepts of Darwinism with lame statements like "Well, I just believe that God created everything, even if He used the Big Bang...". When we deny the very clear verbage of Book 1, Chapter 1, we set the stage for denial of very clear statements about sin, virgin birth, the resurrection, and every one meaningful doctrine of the scripture. Thanks, Kerby. -Jonathan Sanders
|
Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/12/07 03:17:24 PM |
Age 47, MO |
The book Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey seems to be similar to books wriiten by Francis A. Schaeffer. I very highly recommend his many books about the nature of man and the human condition. Escape from Reason and Evangelical Disaster come immediately to mind. Enjoy
|
Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/10/07 04:07:41 PM |
Age 72, AR |
Darwin won a close race to get his idea, actually his observation of the way things happen, of natural selection published so to name the entire concept of evolution with the label Darwinism, as if that were all it amounts to and in a manner that many readers will understand as a swear word is highly inflamatory and deceitful. Darwin is no more the owner of evolution or its practical explanation, natural selection, as they are now understood and more than Orville and Wilbur Wright are the owners of all that goes into designing, building and using an intercontinental airliner or a mach-three fighter. The progressive development of the living organisms that now inhabit Earth, and all the starts and stops along the way, is infinitely more interesting than the fantasy that they suddenly appeared in their present form. How it all got started several billions of years ago, or even if it started here on Earth or not, is irrelevent to the validity of trying to understand the progression. It is not a creed, it requires no belief, it is simply something to be learned like three times three is nine. Just as three squared also is nine, the ways to look at life on Earth, and maybe elsewhere is a continually expanding concept. The explanation should not be muddled or its developers and advocates ridiculed just because it and they are not universally understood. I am not a trained scientist but I do know a number of them, and a substantial percentage are believing, practicing Christians. It is only in very recent years that a very few advocates of science like Dawkins have begun to speak openly against the overwhelming plethora of articles like this deriding science, scientists and their results. It is quite personal to me because without the science behind the medical technology the surgical team used to "participate"---their word---in my return from clinical, legal death fourteen years ago, I would not be able to inform people who do not wish to be informed of such matters. Remember that every single element of human progress came about because someone was skeptical about the way things were, and probably the person most skeptical of things as he found them prominently remembered in human history was one born as Jesus of Nazareth born of Mary of Bethlehem.
|
Re: Darwinism and Truth
| Posted On: 08/10/07 08:51:37 AM |
Age 49, NY |
Kerby Anderson brings a clear summary of the religious connotations to Darwinism. Science need not be Godless, but the atheist choses what to believe in order that there is the possibility to claim everything is Godless.
|
|
|
|
|
