if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154833570.095436.254050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154829821.118164.304960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154807496.650123.286560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>



this is what happens
when you reject naturalism.



Your syllogism fails as there are plenty of people who are more than
capable
of holding unscientifically metaphysical, philosophical and religious
beliefs and still confidently apply the scientific method.

again, the fact that they do so does not mean they are being
consistent.


(I assume you are using the word "inconsistent" as a synonym for
"contradictory", rather than "not steady and continuous".)

no, consistent is the correct word. the fact that they simultaneously
hold to both science and non-naturalistic realities does not mean that
the holding of such ideas together is consistent. ie - it is possible
for them to hold the views, but they arent being consistent.


If there is no logical contradiction, then there is no problem.




What is contradictory about a doctor believing in the intrinsic value of
a
little girl, or even an intangible soul, while treating the body as a bag
of
chemicals at least partly understood by the scientific method?

the doctor valuing the girl? nothing. the doctor claiming that souls
exist, plenty. the girl's value is strictly an opinion of the doctor -
his own personal preference. the existence of souls is a claim about
the reality of the universe.


Interesting word "reality". By invoking the word, you are assuming your
conclusion, as you certainly claim "reality" is the physical universe.


by claiming that souls exist, the doctor
admits to using some method other than science for gaining knowledge
about reality. if he has no problems with doing this, then why does he
need science at all? why does he simply not apply his non-naturalistic
method instead?


For some reason you claim that understanding how plumbing works is
incompatible with a belief in the soul.



of course, the answer is that science is the method that *works* -
there really is no other method for understanding the nature of
reality. the method that the doctor uses to believe in souls, usually
labeled "faith" is the very same method creationists use to believe in
the book of genesis as literal truth. when a doctor claims that faith
is a valid method of reasoning, he has no grounds to tell creationists
they are wrong or that science is correct.


This must be a gross overstatement of even your own position, and hopefully
this might lead you to consider your assertions more carefully. (A doctor is
not necessarily an expert in the science of evolution), but as I understand
your statement, you claim that a belief in soul makes any statement
concerning the natural world suspect and should be disregarded.

A Jewish technician can't be relied upon to fix your television. He clearly
can't distinguish Old Testament dietary restrictions from using a voltmeter
to diagnose an open resistor. He has "no grounds" to advise others about the
proper course of television repair.

A Muslim plumber can't be relied upon to fix your sink. He might believe
that the direction "it flows" is subject to change due to supernatural
considerations. As he prays five times a day, he has "no grounds" to advise
you to replace your sink.

A Catholic scientist, known as an honest person in the community, who
attends Church regularly, and prays for guidance in his daily life, but who
assiduously applies the scientific method, should have his studies rejected
without regard for content because of his religious beliefs. He has "no
grounds" to tell others about the findings of science.

But, in fact, the faith beliefs of a scientist are irrelevant to the
publication of scientific papers. Rather, papers are judged only according
to their ability to predict and explain empirical phenomena. Theories are
judged by the same criteria. Whether Einstein holds some odd metaphysical
view of the universe or not is irrelevant to the validity of the Theory of
Relativity.

you clearly are either not listening, or not understanding. you claim
that the individuals in your examples are applying the scientific
method, but this is simply not the case. they are picking and choosing
where they think they can apply the scientific method, and ignoring it
elsewhere. this is not consistent behavior. you cant sit there and tell
me the scientific method is a reliable way to discover the nature of
reality and then deny applying it to your gods. you cant have it both
ways. either the scientific method is reliable or it is not.

this is no different than how creationists act. they simply choose
where the scientific method applies differently, and somebody who
agrees with them that it can be denied in certain instances has no
grounds to criticize them.



--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scientific Errors
    ... And if the pressure of a ... A science forum is no place to preach such ... the scientific method nor have you chosen to inform PTP of your ... As you have no formal training in Physics it explains why ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Science is a Philosophy
    ... "Belief in the scientific method is faith, ... He needs to clarify what he means by "an objective" reality. ... The important point to remember is that science constrains itself to ... rely on 'personal revelation', either directly or indirectly. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Theories, models, and simplifications
    ... >> is some sort of agreement on the scientific method. ... experiments but I am and all of science ... >> You have agreed with Popper's requirement for refutation ... Either junk Popper or provide an apology. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Speed Of Light Question
    ... >>claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. ... The reality of the performace is not an issue. ... > The person who blindly accepts the illusion as being reality or the one who ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... beliefs and still confidently apply the scientific method. ... What is contradictory about a doctor believing in the intrinsic value ... admits to using some method other than science for gaining knowledge ... incompatible with a belief in the soul. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading