Re: Collins to head NIH?

On 24 July, 18:41, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 24, 3:29 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 23 July, 16:06, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 23, 1:01 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 23 July, 05:01, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:11 pm, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 22, 4:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

I take the view it either happened or it did not happen.
It seems unreasonable to postulate, in the absense of any evidence,
that some large scale violations of the laws of physics occurred 2000
years ago. If someone makes these claims then I want to see some evidence.

Of course that seems unreasonable, if one is applying scientific
methodology.

You seem to mean something special by "the scientific methodology".
I'm simply saying it defies common sense to make these sorts of
claims.

It does defy common sense. The "sense" by which people of deep
religious faith come to believe in things such as the virgin birth is
not common (in the implication that everyone has it). I don't share
it, apparently you don't share it, certainly plenty of others don't.

At the risk of repeating myself. These miracles they talk about must
have either
happened or did not happen. If they happened then anyone will be able
to see
them. Believers and Non-believers alike. This stuff isn't "anti-
scientific" it is
anti-reality, anti-common-sense and anti-logic.

As I said elsewhere if peoplewant to hold miracles happen views then
get on
with,but I don't accept your argument that their views should be left
unchallanged
"because they are religious".

"For evil to prevail it is only necessary for good men to do nothing"

And the same goes for rationality.

<snip>

However, it doesn't matter. If such phenomena
are held to be beyond the reach of scientific methodology,
then they can easily occupy the same cognitive territory.

only if I accept that they are beyond investigation.

No. This is the key. It (the miraculous or supernatural quality of a
phenomenon) has nothing to do with whether *you* accept its
investigability by science or not. It depends entirely upon the
believer. Further elucidation of this argument can be found in the
section you snipped.

No. If it has empirical effects (as usually claimed) then it can be
examined
by naturalistic means. No one can prevent this by waving a bible
around.

This really is the key issue and apparently the one we are not going
to agree on.

I'm about to invoke my statalemate argument as we both seem to be
repeating
ourselves.

<snip>

It might help not to chop up the paragraph by responding before you've
read the whole thing.

I did and I responded to the various points made in it.

You're doing it again in this post. And as a result I am responding in
a choppy fashion. I will endeavor to keep things coherent in any case.

I didn't intend to be annoying or obscure, but your paragraphs were
quite long
and I though they addressed multiple points.

<snip>

The point being, of course, that a theist's
insistence that something "really happened," or is "true" is not meant
as a statement of empirical fact.

Note well. If something "really happened" then *by definition* it is
an
empirical fact.


you are talking about the more sophisticated theologians. The average
believer considers that these things REALLY DID HAPPEN. Take a trip
to Lourdes sometime.

No, I'm not talking about sophisticated theologians. I'm talking about
the millions of people out there who aren't science-denying
creationists, people who just believe what they believe, and keep it
separate from the methodology of science.

Most of those ordinary believers actually believe the things they
claim to believe. I'm amazed that you have a hard time accepting this.
People go to Lourdes because they hope for a miracle. This is not some
abstract intellectually held theological statement. It's a hard in-the-gut
belief that the thing actually happened.

Well, to be frank I'm amazed you're amazed. Especially since I've gone
out of my way to make it clear that I also think these people "believe
the things they claim to believe." It must be something in the way I'm
expressing myself that keeps this from coming across, but it's clear
that you're misapprehension on this score is exactly the same as
snex's.

well I don't consider it a misapprehension (hardly surprising!) but we
do
have a fundamental philosophical disagreement in that I don't accept
there are two
types of things "that really happened"; those that are empirical facts
and
those that are not.


Let me try this once again: Yes, some people really do believe in the
virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracle at Lourdes, even that the
sun stopped in the sky in 1917. They believe these things really
happened. I accept that this is what they believe.

Now, the important thing to recognize here is that,
a) they do not come to these beliefs by way of science,
b) they realize that they do not come to these beliefs by way of
science,
c) most of them recognize that these beliefs cannot be considered
science by non-believers, and
d) for the most part do not ask that anyone accept these beliefs as
scientific fact.

This is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that most of them are
not pressing for inclusion of these events in science curricula. Most
of them are not picketing university biology and physics departments
for subverting their alternate view of reality. Most of them recognize
and accept the category distinction between religion and science. And
most of them, in my experience, when confronted do not try to justify
these events empirically, preferring to simply say "It's just what
I've always been taught and choose to believe."

ok,as long it is a privatley held belief. I suspect it has more effect
on people's
behaviour than you are willing to admit.

<snip>

--
Nick Keighley

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... supernatural beliefs - regardless of their support for science, ... science, and regardless of a complete lack of a challenge to science ... There are gazillions of ways for the believer to deflect the results ... as a statement of empirical fact. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... Depends on what the criteria for candidates are. ... How about we just teach science in science class? ... As long as the policy is entirely secular (and biology ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mischaracterization of ID?
    ... >in court, which was aso made quite clear. ... They can easily decide that science, ... School boards decide on curricula based on (to be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Life after people
    ... He wants to control nature. ... My point is mankind is the higest order of creatures on earth. ... But the point is we should know this without science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > of science and philosophy. ... *as implemented in laws and policies* have purpose and effect. ... Why do you think that SETI isn't science? ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading