Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 11

• 0%

  Redneck6 months, 2 weeks ago

  FTA: Evangelists for atheism who link their philosophical positions to science end up doing that same science a great disservice by fueling the fire of fundamentalism here and around the world. Calling them evangelists is warranted, because if their true goal were the propagation of the acceptance of science, they simply wouldn't focus so much on non-scientific implications.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    Tangent0016 months, 2 weeks ago

    Science can have no 'fundamentalists'. Fundamentalism is based in dogma. Science has no dogma. Dogma is unchallengeable. Science is always challengeable, which is why we have non-Euclidean geometry. It's why Einstein's concepts of space and time were able to challenge long-held notions of physics.

    The implications of science are up to philosophers, not scientists. Science is a methodology, not a philosophy.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      Frontiermike6 months ago

      This is not an issue of science versus Religion, it is an issue of Evolutionist dogma versus Religion. Science is not a philosophy, but evolution is. For instance, anybody who (having plenty of good scientific observation) challenges evolution will have a hard time finding a job teaching. Belief in evolution is rewarded with money, challenging it is punished. How is that open and fair?

      Reply
• 0%

  Redneck6 months, 2 weeks ago

  FTA: The problem with the sort of atheism found in the popular press is that, despite its scientific trappings, its proponents are essentially playing philosophers. Not content with exposing Kent Hovind-style charlatans, popular atheism fallaciously argues that because science presupposes naturalism (the idea that everything can be explained through recourse to natural causes, as opposed to supernatural causes), it is therefore only rational to hold to physicalism (the idea that physical things are the only things that exist), which of course excludes any concept of the supernatural.

  But physicalism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Other similar propositions, such as "scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge," are also scientifically unprovable.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    Tangent0016 months, 2 weeks ago

    To which 'popular press' are you referring? The books published by Dawkins and such make their way on their own merit. I have yet to see ANY comment in the mass media that forwards the claims made in their books. There is polite dismissive commentary, some reviews as to the astuteness of their arguments, but no 'atheist agenda', quite the contrary.

    It's not only Kent Hovind. Its Behe, Dembski, Baugh, Patton, Burdick, Robertson, heck the entire rack of Republican candidates.

    Science accepts (not presupposes) naturalism, because that is the only thing it can examine. That is the nature of the methodology. Science has no way of examining that which is not in evidence, nor can in make any claims regarding metaphysics, except to reasonably exclude it from the scientific paradigm given the lack of credible evidence or examinable hypotheses.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      Frontiermike6 months ago

      "Science accepts (not presupposes) naturalism, because that is the only thing it can examine. That is the nature of the methodology"

      There have been numerous scientist who studied healings and miracles and have made scientific provable observations about those, but no news agency or publishing company would even think about promoting that. The media makes public what it wants.

      Reply
• 0%

  Redneck6 months, 2 weeks ago

  FTA:

  But physicalism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Other similar propositions, such as "scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge," are also scientifically unprovable. These are questions about which well-meaning, reasonable people may disagree. Science can say that there is no empirical evidence to indicate anything beyond the natural world, but that doesn't decisively rule out the possibility of its existence. Yet atheistic polemicists are making just such claims.

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 0%

    smithichie6 months, 2 weeks ago

    I don't exclude the possiblility of the supernatural anymore than I exclude the possiblility of toothfairies, I just say, show me the evidence. After all, the claim that there are no toothfairies is also "scientifically unprovable". While the nonexistence of toothfairies may be "scientifically unprovable", personally I find little reason to live my life assuming they MAY exist. If someone catches a toothfairy, maybe I will change my attitude.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      bigcooll6 months, 2 weeks ago

      Well Said!!

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Frontiermike6 months ago

        NOT well said.

        You are trying to compare something like Christianity to the tooth fairy. Not even possible. There were over 700 eye witnesses of Jesus resurrection. Not only that, but they were persecuted and gave their life refusing to deny that they had seen him risen from the grave. They were fed to lions. They were burned alive, and while it happened, they sang songs of praise to God, sure that they had seen Jesus both killed, and then raised with their own eyeballs.

        So the question is whether someone saw the "tooth fairy" its about whether you would actually believe anybody saw something supernatural.

        Reply
  • 0%

    Tangent0016 months, 2 weeks ago

    You make the assumption that science posits anything 'provable'. Science can 'prove' nothing. 'Proof' in the strictest sense lays only in the realm of logic and mathematics. Science only provides evidence to support theories. Science excludes the metaphysical because there is no evidence (empirical or logical) of such.

    What would you have science do? Seriously. How would you have science be inclusive of non-evidentiary metaphysical claims? What do you expect?

    Reply