Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[socharlie]

Then we don't have to prove YOU wrong -

Sure, but how do you know your experience (or, at least, the explanation you have for your experience) is an accurate representation of the truth if lots of other people have similar experiences and come to entirely different conclusions?

I have a memory file in my mind banks telling that what I experienced was real, truth. Like a another sensory organ. I do not dismiss that information. It is within my mind, consciousness. It just there, How can anyone else can tell me that it is wrong?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have a memory file in my mind banks telling that what I experienced was real, truth.

But how do you know it IS? There are countless other people who have had experiences like yours but that entirely contradict your experience or interpretation of it. We know you can't both be right, so who is wrong and how can we tell?

Like a another sensory organ. I do not dismiss that information.

But it's not information, it's just an assertion. Using this logic, someone who inherently believe his mother is a sausage is perfectly justified in cooking her.

It is within my mind, consciousness. It just there, How can anyone else can tell me that it is wrong?

We don't have to. YOU have to investigate whether or not it is RIGHT. How have you done that? How have you ruled out the possibility that your mind is simply wrong?

 

[socharlie]

But how do you know it IS? There are countless other people who have had experiences like yours but that entirely contradict your experience or interpretation of it. We know you can't both be right, so who is wrong and how can we tell?


But it's not information, it's just an assertion. Using this logic, someone who inherently believe his mother is a sausage is perfectly justified in cooking her.


We don't have to. YOU have to investigate whether or not it is RIGHT. How have you done that? How have you ruled out the possibility that your mind is simply wrong?

it is metaphysical 'right', this is confirmed to me by living and may be several lifetimes. something is confirmed very soon, something not... it is not confirmed in meters, minutes and kilograms.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's like I've said. These scientists are not considering ID at all and theists are not really considering it either. Until theists consider that their God might be limited and until scientists consider that their makeup might have involved intelligence, it is impossible for ID to flourish.

The following is an excerpt from a statement worth while read concerning the dialogue between science and religion by the Executive Committee of the International Society for Science and Religion. The statement includes an objection to "scientism" described as a materialist worldview of science.

From: https://www.issr.org.uk/issr-statements/concept-intelligent-design/

"The intelligent-design (ID) movement began in the late 1980s as a challenge to the perceived secularization of the scientific community, which leaders of the movement maintained had been coloured with the philosophy of atheistic naturalism. ID theorists have focused their critique primarily on biological evolution and the neo-Darwinian paradigm. They claim that because certain biological features appear to be “irreducibly complex” and thus incapable of evolving incrementally by natural selection, they must have been created by the intervention of an intelligent designer. Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or “scientific” creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language. Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of “irreducible complexity” in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes. Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be “irreducibly complex” today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow.

Scientific explanations are always incomplete. We grant that a comprehensive account of evolutionary natural history remains open to complementary philosophical, metaphysical, and religious dimensions. Darwinian natural history does preempt certain accounts of creation, leading, for example, to the contemporary creationist and ID controversies. However, in most instances, biology and religion operate at different and non-competing levels. In many religious traditions, such as some found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, the notion of intelligent design is irrelevant. We recognize that natural theology may be a legitimate enterprise in its own right, but we resist the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science – just as we oppose efforts of others to elevate science into a comprehensive world view (so-called scientism)."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

it is metaphysical 'right', this is confirmed to me by living and may be several lifetimes. something is confirmed very soon, something not... it is not confirmed in meters, minutes and kilograms.

So, in other words, you believe it's true for no good reason, have no good reason to think you're right rather than everyone else, and have no means to determine whether or not what you believe is actually true.

 

[socharlie]

+

So, in other words, you believe it's true for no good reason, have no good reason to think you're right rather than everyone else, and have no means to determine whether or not what you believe is actually true.

I think that only those who know is right and I am willing to listen to them. opinion of any atheist would not fit in that category.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

+

I think that only those who know is right and I am willing to listen to them. opinion of any atheist would not fit in that category.

Why not? They're just as likely to be right as you.

 

[socharlie]

Why not? They're just as likely to be right as you.

they are not capable to 'process' spiritual side of metaphysical world.

 

[Sapiens]

they are not capable to 'process' spiritual side of metaphysical world.

You mean the imaginary claptap that is utterly without evidence but that conformational bias required belief in to get through the day? That's what they lack the capacity to process?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

they are not capable to 'process' spiritual side of metaphysical world.

But you don't even know if there IS a spiritual side to the world - everything you think you know of it is merely your unjustified interpretation of personal experiences. I have no reason to trust your judgement more than the judgement of an insane person.