Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

geoformeo@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I have read a number of recent posts where "intellectual dishonesty"
was used as a criteria of creationist tactics. I know at least one
poster (snex) and maybe more have used this terminology excessively as
a refutation of creationist rationality. While I do not deny the fact
that many creationists are misguided in their attempts to justify a
literal interpretation of Genesis when scientific evidence to the
contrary abounds, I cannot help but think that it is hypocritical for
atheists to call creationists intellectually dishonest (for not all
"creationists" adopt to this interpretation). My rationale is as
follows:

Some say that there is no scientific evidence for God. I would argue
to the contrary, but that is another topic of discussion. Let's
assume that there is no scientific evidence for God. There is also no
scientific evidence which 100% exludes the possibility of there being
a God. In fact, scientists must admit the possibility, however
probable or remote, that future scientific evidence could confirm the
existence of God. But scientific evidence could never falsify the
existence of God, because science would have to be open to the
possiblity that future scientific evidence may confirm His existence.
That is not to say that evidence couldn't possibly point heavily
towards His non-existence, but rather that it could never completely
dispose of the notion of God.

Besides, isn't it intellectually dishonest to presuppose that only
things that can be observed and verified experimentally by science are
real? Can someone's *faith* in science be quantified scientifically?
What about mathematical truth? Isn't there a better way to approach
the debate than to express hypocritical arguments from personal
incredulity?

Cheers,

Rocky

Science has no opinion on God. By all definitions I've ever heard God(s) of all sizes (including the FSM), are un-natural or super-natural (pick one that suits you) and as such, are not included in the topic of science. It's nothing personal, any non-natural things are by definition outside the scope of natural science.

Now, you might argue that people could find "evidence" of a deity, but you'll have to be very careful to let everyone know that you're talking OUTSIDE the scope of science where words like "evidence" and "theory" have a much less stringent usage. By default, the people here interpret everything in terms of science and they infer strict terminlogy using the "scientific" meaning of words.

As for the term "intellectually dishonest", you're going to have a hard time moving "intellectual" outside that scope of science with the folks that hang out here. You won't find many people here that would associate "intellectual" with "belief", no matter what that belief was. They would associate "philosophical" or "religious" with things like that.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: i want to join with this group
    ... were not objective since you did not include evolutionists as well. ... consistent a phenomenon as the errors made by creationists. ... accomodate science, not by actual evidence. ... Science presupposing that God produced reality and the assertion is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: i want to join with this group
    ... the minority but represent Science). ... Historically, Creationists are deeply divided ... Science presupposing that God produced reality and the assertion is ... If the majority is *always* wrong, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does evolution mean that nature has intelligence?
    ... :: I think modern science does a pretty damned good job at that. ... ::: changes daily and quite often scientists disagree about the ... ::: God did it is the best explanation so far. ... Creationists on the other hand, simply claim they are right, and don't bother proving it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: i want to join with this group
    ... Steven did not suggest that only Creationists are capable of error. ... it's the definition of science by those who actually practice science. ... Science presupposing that God produced reality and the assertion is ... In any case, for evolution to operate, there isn't any need to know the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another question for IDers
    ... word-for-word statements of their science. ... Because they can't get help from the science field to find the evidence ... They just see how science proves the evidence of God. ... As it is the creationists who are claiming that their religious ...
    (talk.origins)