Re: Methodological Materialism and Philosophical Materialism

rev.goetz wrote:

Evolutionary science has no business deciding between philosophical
materialism or theism or any other option. However, scientists can form
interdisciplinary perspectives about philosophical materialism or
theism or any thing else.

"All philosophical materialists are methodological materialists, but
not the converse."
Eugenie C. Scott
<www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/528_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp>

James Goetz


Good article, but I think it contains a lot of pabulum intended to win over religionists. Here's an opposing point of view which doesn't mince words and doesn't hedge all over the place, which I originally posted as "God: a failed hypothesis" back on June 21:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Science takes on the Big Guy as Victor Stenger kicks some ass:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/godless.html

"If God is the intelligent designer of life on Earth, then we should find evidence for that in observations of the structure of life. We do not. If God has endowed humans with immaterial souls and is the source of morality, then we should find evidence for that in observations of human behavior. We do not. If God answers prayers, then we should see miraculous effects of prayer. We do not. If God has revealed truths to humanity, then those truths should be empirically verified. They are not. If God is the creator of the universe and the laws of nature, then we should find evidence for that in astronomy and physics. We do not. If humans are a special creation of God, then the universe should be congenial to human life. It is not.

The universe and life look exactly as they can be expected to look if there is no God."

Moreover:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/ImpGodChapter.htm

"Presented here is an argument based on modern physics and cosmology against the existence of a God who created the universe. It can be summarized as follows:

1. Hypothesize a God who is the highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator of the physical universe.

2. We can reasonably expect that empirical evidence should exist for a purposeful and supernatural creation of this cosmos, such as the observed violation of one or more laws of physics.

3. No empirical evidence for a purposeful creation of the cosmos can be found. No universal laws of physics were violated at the origin of the universe in which we reside.

4. Modern cosmology indicates that the initial state of our universe was one of maximum chaos so that it contains no memory of a creator.

5. Scientists can provide plausible, purely natural scenarios based in well-established cosmological theories that show how our universe may have arisen out of an initial state of nothingness.

6. We can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God who is the highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator of the physical universe does not exist."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


--dkomo@xxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages
Loading