if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:
<snip>

They cannor be explained rationally, since they aren't rational but
emotional. They do not lend themselves for textbooks, but are usually
explained using metaphors, analogies and archetypical figures and
situations. For some brief introductions into this world of thinking,
reread (for instance) the tales of the Grimm Brothers.

if that is the case, then you are not allowed to say that these methods
give you knowledge about the existence of gods.

What law prevents me from saying so? Poor choice of words, i would
say... But, taking the more lenient view, if you choose to define
"knowledge" as strictly rational, that is your choice. Personally, i
think that "knowledge" is a bit more than just "rational".

then show me some knowledge that isnt rational, and how you attained
it. show me how you can demonstrate that it is true. if you cant, then
in what sense is it knowledge?


Mind you that i do not equate "knowledge" to "science"... Science _is_
strictly rational and _should_ be, but there are other forms of
"knowledge".

such as?


<snip>

the fact that people do it does not make those people consistent.

Consistency is not a Good Thing (tm) by definition. If you consistently
treat all patients with a couple of aspirins and let them come back in
the morning, you'll soon loose all your patients. I, for one, would
immediately switch my favorite doctor.

Same goes for consistently treating your patients in exactly the same
way. An 80-year-old with arthritis requires a different approach than
an 8 year old with a tummy-ache that doesn't go away.

wow, you gonna open a scarecrow store with all that straw?

I merely gave you an example of how consistency isn't always a "Good
Thing (tm)". No straw in sight. Since that is your only objection, i
take it you get my point?

no, you didnt give an example of how consistency isnt always a good
thing, you gave a strawman.


<snip>

To assert a claim is scientific requires validation by the scientific
method. The scientific method is not the only valid method of human inquiry,
and for many aspects of human existence may not be the best method of
inquiry. It is apparently the only one you recognize, but your personal
predilections are not binding on others.

again, what are these other methods, and how are they supposed to work?

Why don't you meditate on that question? Perhaps it will help you on
your way to enlightenment. A straight session of "Just Sitting" will
do. Or "Just Walking" if you prefer...

define "enlightenment."

I can't. I'm not enlightened. If I were and could "define"" you'd be
enlightened if you understood and would just laugh at me if yiu
weren't. If you had actually _read_ my post, you'd refrained from
making such silly demands.

if you cant define it, then you have no grounds to say anybody is on
their way there, or that meditating will get one there.


what prevents these methods from being applied to origins, as
creationists are wont to do?

The great stupidity of creationists is that they _don't_ use those
methods. If they did, they would _easily_ see that their line of
reasoning (attempting to validate a creation-myth using a perverted
version of science and resorting to blunt lies to do it) is not only
doomed to be fruitless, but also counterproductive. It actually keeps
them from using those methods.

if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of reasoning,
then you have no grounds to critisize creationists, for faith is what
they use.

I critisize them for their lack of faith, their deceptive methods and
blunt lies. If they claim to be scientic, it's easy enought to find the
flaws in their reasoning, if they try to gain political dominance, it's
easy to find their ulterior motives and their lies...

You would have know had you actually _read_ my post instead of skimming
it for points to object to.

creationists can claim anything they want, because their justification
for it is faith. it may seem like a lie or a falsity to you, but it is
arrived at through faith, and since you feel that faith is valid, you
have no grounds to critisize them.


evolution appears true because the
great spirit wants you to think it appears true.


The Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific conclusion based
on empirical evidence.

The Theory of God is not supported at all by the scientific method or
any empirical evidence, yet people claim there is some other route to
come to believe in him.

There is. The fact that you don't see it does not prevent others from
seeing it. Oh and before you ask, it is _not_ susceptible to scientific
reasoning. That is reserved for other avenues of understanding.

then explain how it works and why it cant be applied to evolution.

For exactly the same reason you can't apply science to religion.
Science does not say anything on religious matters, religion is silent
on scientific matters. Muddle the two and you need a whole lot of lies
to keep up appearances (vide Kent Hovind et al).

Besides, i can explain "how it works" untill i'm blue in the face, and
you'd still not understand.

you did not answer the question. explain the method, how it works, and
why it cant be applied to evolution.


what prevents this other route from also concluding evolution to be false?

The fact that it says nothing about the subjects science has chosen to
study.

you cant say this until you describe the method itself.

I just did. There's no such thing as "The Method" which can be
"Descibed". The Method that can be described, after all, is not the
real method. Sending you to some teacher who thinks he can is of no use
either, since anyone who thinks he can, did not understand.

This one you'd have to figure out on your own. Just sit.

just above you say that there is such a method, and now you say that
there isnt. contradict yourself much?


the christian god
appears to exist because the great spirit wants you to think it appears
to exist. whatever you think is, is because the great spirit wants it
that way, and thus objective truth is irrelevant.


It is certainly not irrelevant. You merely assert that.

it is irrelevant. if non-natural entities are considered, then all bets
are off as to any notions of truth.

Which implies you have knowledge of "truth". It has been a subject i'm
very much interested in. Tell me more. How do you _scientifically_
determine what the "truth" is, especially when it comes to non-natural
entities?

In case you hadn't noticed the sting in it, ask Mr. Wilkins. He's the
resident professional on those matters. Popper had something to say on
that, it think, but as i've heard even he's not above criticism...

the very word "non-natural" implies falsity. nature is all that is.
something outside nature is outside of existence.

That's what you say. Do you have any evidence to back that statement?

it is true by definition.



if any conscious universe creators exist, then they are natural beings subject to
natural laws. not necessarily the laws of our universe, but laws
nonetheless.

You have a very narrowminded view if these matters and quite
inconsistent at that. First you state that "non-natural" implies
non-existence, then you claim you know that those non-existent entities
_must_ obey "natural-laws" as if you've got insider information.

Again, what evidence do you have for any "natural-laws" governing
non-natural entities or the requirement that there must be such laws?
Since you take the ratioalist side, you should at least stick to
rationalist rules...

Otherwise you're pretty inconsistent in applying rationalism.

more strawmen. i said that IF there are any conscious creators of the
universe, THEN they are perfectly NATURAL and subject to NATURAL laws.
non-natural things never enter the picture. honestly, i dont know where
you get this crap.


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.

Show me a man who'se always consistent, and i'll show you a corpse.
Consistency is for computers. Living things just make it up as they go
along.

some people try to correct their inconsistencies, others wallow in it
like a pig in its own filth.

Yeah, sure...

You're not very successfull in your attempts at consistency. Welcome to
your own filth.

look whos talking, mr "i contradict myself within the same post."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of reasoning, ... and thus objective truth is irrelevant. ... natural laws. ... non-natural entities or the requirement that there must be such laws? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: MORAL RELATIVISM - A RESPONSE
    ... > any) between the accepted theories / values of our time and the laws ... > and Teachings of the Faith. ... > contrast with the spiritual Teachings and principles of our Faith. ... spirituality and other topics, is to defend ferociously one concept and ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
  • Re: What is the "Cause of God"
    ... I am very certain that I did not denigrate the Baha'i declaration. ... Living by the laws or recognizing Baha'u'llah. ... I have often said that if we could introduce the Faith in beer blasts we ... believers are not yet familiar. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • MORAL RELATIVISM - A RESPONSE
    ... any) between the accepted theories / values of our time and the laws ... and Teachings of the Faith. ... contrast with the spiritual Teachings and principles of our Faith. ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
  • MORAL RELATIVISM - A RESPONSE
    ... any) between the accepted theories / values of our time and the laws ... and Teachings of the Faith. ... contrast with the spiritual Teachings and principles of our Faith. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)