Re: Evolution and faith in God: is there any contradiction?

snex <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 5, 12:22 am, geofor...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:56 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

uhhh no. reality is what actually exists. if you make a statement
about the way reality is, you are required by the standards of
intellectual honesty to *demondtrate* that reality is actually that
way. you dont get to just make claims and demand that unless somebody
disproves them, they are true.

Oh boy, here we go again. The *intellectually honest* policeman has
shown up. You know, Snex, you are quick to ask questions, yet
reluctant to answer them. All I've ever read from you in defense of a
claim about the ability of science to explain everything is that
science has a proven track record and is an objective explanation of
reality. As a scientist myself, those explanations are unsatisfactory
to my scientific mind. Your consistent use of vague generalities do
nothing to support your cause.

i have never claimed science explains everything. you are lying if you
claim i say that. what i say is that if YOU want your non-scientific
methods of inquiry to be respected, YOU need to demonstrate that they
do what you claim they do (i.e. lead to truth). if you cant, stop
crying when it isnt respected.


No, you claim that truth can only be arrived at by objective
methodologies. All we are trying to do is show you that there are
subjective truths as well, and these cannot be arrived at through the
use of metapysical naturalism.



you claim that there is some method for discovering truths about
reality that differs from science. i asked you to supply that method
and show that it actually does what you say it does. you have not.

Let me ask you a simple question, Snex. Have you ever had a personal
experience? Some event or emotion or thought unique to yourself? Of
course you have, as that is what is unique about the human
experience....we can contemplate our own existence in a first-person
brain state. Yet no matter how much science probes the brain, or
monitors brain activity, it can never explain what it's like to be
you. Science can analyze the part of the brain that is active when
you are thinking about a particular thing, yet it cannot tell you what
you are thinking about. I don't know what it's like to be you, Snex,
yet I know that you have a personal reality that exists outside the
bounds of scientific inquiry. Is this not a truth? Is this not
reality, or are your personal experiences unreal?

this has NOTHING to do with anything i said. you and macaddicted are
claiming that there are non-scientific ways of arriving at truths
about objective reality, yet you refuse to show that those ways work.
when anybody asks, you immediately evade the issue.

stop it. either demonstrate that the method works or stop crying that
you get treated like a child for insisting on using it.


The very truths you hold that cannot be objectively determined, whatever
they may be, are the very truths to which we refer. I cannot understand
why you have such a hard time understanding that.


since science is currently the only method that can be shown
to be accurate, all the rest do not deserve respect until they
can show that accuracy.

Religious experience is a personal experience, and therefore is as
real as the natural world for some people. If physical accuracy is
the only thing you're concerned with, then science is definitely the
way to go. It is, as oft stated by you, tried and true. Yet if there
exists a reality outside of the physical world, it cannot show
accuracy in the sense that you request. Its *accuracy* is to be
assessed by personal experience (and, ultimately, when we die).
Because you cannot judge religious accuracy to the same degree as
scientific accuracy, does that mean you can disregard it as untrue?

if you cannot judge the accuracy of a religious statement, WHY is it
perfectly acceptable to assert that statement? WHY is it perfectly
acceptable to ram that statement down the throats of children with
stories of what evil things will happen to them when they die if they
do not believe it?

First, there is nothing that says you have to accept my or anyone else's
philosophical ideas.

Second only it is a small, if vocal, portion of the Christian faith that
uses fear to drive their believers into God's hands.



if you cannot judge the accuracy of a religious statement, why do YOU
believe it anyway? do you not realize how stupid this is?


Because, at least in the case of the RCC, religious statements are
subjective in that they deal with the relationship between God and
humanity as interpersonal subjects.


Then prove to me, using only the methods of science, why human
life has value in a general sense.

i dont need to, since i have never made that claim.

I really do feel sorry for you, Snex, if you honestly believe human
life has no value. If it does not, Snex, then by what scientific
criteria are you basing that claim?

strawman! why dont you address the statements i do make, not the ones
i do not make?


whats worse, i can turn it around on you. prove to me, using ANY
method, why human life has value in the general sense.

Your usual tactic, turning the question around so you don't have to
answer it. Is there any value in the fact that we have evolved a
brain that is capable of consciousness? That this highly specialized
organ has enabled mankind to do things and contemplate things unlike
any other creature on the Earth, and, as far as we know right now, the
only place in the universe? Or that the human body has evolved
contemporaneously to complement brain function? Again, what is your
method for attributing a value to something?

i never claimed to have any such method. thats your department. prove
your method works.


im sorry, i thought i asked you to prove something, not simply assert
it. what part of that was not clear?

Pot calling kettle black.

no it isnt. i do not simply make assertions that cannot be backed up.


the fact that science cannot answer every possible question is
not a license to make *** up.

Nor is it a license to say that nothing else can answer scientifically
unanswerable questions.

and i never said that! what i said was that if you cant demonstrate
that any proposed method works, then you are just making *** up.


the fact that there are questions that science cannot answer
proves that there are questions that science cannot answer. it
does not mean that there must be other methods that can answer
them. if you are so desperate for certain answers that you think
making *** up is justified, then you are not an intellectually
honest person.

Is it intellectually honest to disregard possible explanations for
your scientifically unanswerable questions by claiming that people are
just making stuff up? Or is that ignorance?

if you cant demonstrate that your answers or the method you used to
get them are correct, then you ARE making *** up. thats the very
definition of "making *** up."


no, i am simply asking you to back up your assertions. you assert that
there is a non-scientific method of discovering truths about reality.
if you cannot demonstrate that such is the case, you are simply lying
and not to be taken seriously.

Okay, Snex. Here is your chance. Back up your assertion that there
*isn't* a non-scientific method of discovering truth. And don't go
saying that you don't have to because the burden of proof is on me.
That's just your same old cop-out. I look forward to hearing from you
soon.

i never claimed that there arent any non-scientific methods for
discovering truth. all i know is that science is the only method we
currently know of. if you think there are more, start demonstrating
them.


Cheers,
Rocky


--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)

.

Loading