Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology


"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157819591.715479.148620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157812683.098213.179640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

roger_pearse@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
snex wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:
the evidence is overwhelmingly against miracles.

Another unsupported assumption. Absence of evidence is not
evidence
of
absence.

absence of evidence indicates that reasonable people refrain from
believing until evidence arrives.

You need to decide whether you are arguing

1. That the "evidence is overwhelmingly against miracles."

or

2. That there is no evidence of miracles.

if you hadnt dishonestly snipped my next paragraph, youd see that your
question is already answered.


Just for the record, this is the snipped portion.
and the fact that magicians can fool people is positive evidence
*against* miracles, but i suppose you missed that part.




Neither position is true, but you need to be consistent, surely?

I wonder if you could offer any evidence for what you no doubt
proselytise for, conformity to some subset of the societal values of
the period in which you happened to be born. If not, your comments
about absence of evidence would seem to need qualification.

where do i proselytize for this? how is promoting logic and science
proselytizing anyway? we already know that they work.


Let's look closely at this last claim. "Logic and science work." Now,
"work"
in this sense means to expend effort to achieve a desired goal. If the
desired goal is understanding of the natural world, then certainly
science
has shown great utility in this regard. If you want to juggle abstract
ideas, then logic has been found particularly useful. But if you want to
understand the human condition, meaning the subjective reality that
humans
directly experience, then science and logic have exhibited only limited
power to reveal these answers. Sometimes poetry and metaphor may contain
more wisdom in this regard.

Your claim is an example of Petitio Principii. You have entailed your
conclusion in your premise.

poetry and metaphor dont attempt to, as far as im aware, make claims
about actual historical events.


Sure they can. Historical dramas often try to inform us as to the characters
and motivations of historical persons and events. Sometimes, when done well,
they can tell us more about an era than any recitation of dates or places.


thus, poetry and metaphor stick to
their proper domains. religion does not do this. religion attempts to
make truth claims about actual historical and current events, but this
is the domain of history and science, not religion.


Not all religions make historical claims, and not all religions expect their
sacred literature to be taken as modern histories.







do you believe that god exists? yes or no?

do you believe that the bible is his inspired word? yes or no?

I notice that you don't want to discuss your preferred alternative!

im merely trying to get VoU to stop engaging in pagano-style sophistry
and state his position.


you mean you dont want to answer my question, yet you still think
your
views should be respected.

Can you even state the views by which you live your life, other than
in
words borrowed from the media of our day?

how is this relevant to anything?


Basically, it is relevant because of the suggestion that our philosophy
or
world-view is entangled with our cultural milieu; yours, as much as
anybody's. You say you are trying to get VoiceofReason to state his
position, but won't admit to your own subjective experience.

i am attacking VoU's unreasonable position that it is ok to attack
creationists for denying evolution science while at the same time
denying anatomy science.


It's a miracle! An unexplained and possibly unexplainable event. You don't
have to believe it. Just as many Christians don't believe in a literal
Resurrection. They take it as myth or metaphor and draw hope from the
possibility. Others do believe it literally, of course. Science remains
skeptical of such claims. But then, science is always skeptical.







you admitted to belief in the resurrection. you are a science
denier.

Another unsupported assertion. Dude, you're getting boring with
this.

your science denial is boring. stop pretending that creationists
should
accept evolution when you dont accept basic anaotmy of humans.

Another non-scientist. If you knew anything about science, you would
know that it does not commit to religious opinions such as "the
resurrection did not happen." Your 19th century rationalism is
amusing, but scientists are not rationalists.

"the resurrection did not happen" is not a religious opinion.


Out of any context, it certainly could be. Or it might be a tentative
scientific assertion.

if it were tentative, people wouldnt believe it were absolutely true
because an ancient book says so.


Well, there are a lot of absolutists in the world. You appear to be one of
them. But most people, religious or non-religious, are not.





--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/



it is a
statement about actual historical events. science requires that
historical events obey the laws of nature just as much as it requires
current and future events to.


All the best,

Roger Pearse




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... "Logic and science work." ... attempt to depict history, and can on ocassion do so with great insight. ... religion does not do this. ... resurrection of jesus to be literal history. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The ToE kept alive by governement grants.
    ... discussing the interaction of science with religion in the public ... As I have also said many times before, "evidence" can be defined ... like where supernatural reasoning lead somebody to do something good, ... not push his beliefs as science, and more importantly does not deny ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... no wonder you cant understand why science and religion ... so we go by the evidence and educated guesses e ... I give you ans answer that has nothing to do with religion, ... Good for what in a scientists? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... I would call those historical events. ... There is no evidence that such an event happened at all. ... Then it is clear that you have a view of science that is not reflected ... They were in no way using your definition of religion however. ...
    (talk.origins)