Life From Dirt?

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think it is a truth to dismiss science at every turn as scientism. Especially using it as a pejorative and lobbing it over the shoulder. That doesn't seem like a position of truth or strength.

 

[ratiocinator]

Most theists don't believe they've found any truth...

Do you have some actual statistics on that or do you just think you know the truth?

 

[PureX]

Wouldn't you have to believe that you have the truth in order to determine that others don't?

Of course not.

We can know THAT we don't know without knowing WHAT we don't know. In fact, it's logically inevitable.

 

[ratiocinator]

We can know THAT we don't know without knowing WHAT we don't know.

That works for what you don't know but your actual claim was "There are lots of human herds believing in and chasing after lots of different ideals. But none of them possess any actual knowledge of the truth." [emphasis added].

How could you possibly know that absolutely none of them have any knowledge of the truth without knowing all of the truth yourself? You appear to have claimed to be omniscient.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course not.

We can know THAT we don't know without knowing WHAT we don't know. In fact, it's logically inevitable.

What about what others know? It seems like "of course it is" from what I'm reading. Levying a charge of scientism seems more like a mantra than any sort of rational rebuttal. It is levied with an apparent nod to knowing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course not.

We can know THAT we don't know without knowing WHAT we don't know. In fact, it's logically inevitable.

I'm told that people that are possessed by demons don't know they are possessed, but others do. My questions are the same for those that know without a doubt those that are possessed by scientism. How do you know? You must have some truth that can be shared? Surely, given how often it is levied as an accusation or in response to some argument.

 

[PureX]

That works for what you don't know but your actual claim was "There are lots of human herds believing in and chasing after lots of different ideals. But none of them possess any actual knowledge of the truth." [emphasis added].

How could you possibly know that absolutely none of them have any knowledge of the truth without knowing all of the truth yourself? You appear to have claimed to be omniscient.

The truth is what is. It is holistic, dynamic, and complex beyond comprehension. Not partial. So unless we humans are omniscient, we cannot know the truth. We can only assess relative truthfulness. Because anything we think we know to be true, might turn out not to be true if we knew the whole truth. The world was flat until it wasn't. The world is round until it isn't. The world is an indistinct event taking place in space until it's just a falsely isolated aspect of a solar system. The truth of things, to us, depends on our limited and ever-changing point of cognitive perspective. But that's not the truth at all. It's just a mythical assessment of relative truthfulness that we let ourselves believe to be the truth.

 

[PureX]

What about what others know? It seems like "of course it is" from what I'm reading. Levying a charge of scientism seems more like a mantra than any sort of rational rebuttal. It is levied with an apparent nod to knowing.

Nevertheless, we can know that we don't know without knowing what we don't know. And in fact it is inevitable. I'm sorry you don't like the conceptual phenomenon of scientism. But it is a phenomenon whether you recognize it or not. And those who have fallen into it adamantly refuse to recognize it no matter how well or how many times it's explained to them. So if you're having trouble with it, this should give you pause for thought. And if it doesn't give you pause for thought, ... well ... join the cult.

 

[PureX]

I'm told that people that are possessed by demons don't know they are possessed, but others do. My questions are the same for those that know without a doubt those that are possessed by scientism. How do you know? You must have some truth that can be shared? Surely, given how often it is levied as an accusation or in response to some argument.

Give it up, dude. This isn't going anywhere.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Give it up, dude. This isn't gong anywhere.

The obvious conclusion is that you cannot. You have a belief.

 

[viole]

Science does not assume naturalism in it's epistemology, it assumes it in it's methodology. It is open to the supernatural and does not say that there is no God and no angels etc.

It does. It is called naturalistic methodology.
And that does mean it excludes Gods and angels. Being the latter not belonging to the set.

That would be like saying that chess players do not exclude checkers. They do not. Different games. But whatever is achieved by checkers, has not been achieved by chess.

As we know, science has not the tools to find the supernatural and any discovery of mechanisms to explain the natural world does not eliminate God or the supernatural from. It is just that the God of the gaps idea was wrong to begin with and God was not sitting in heaven and throwing lightning bolts etc.
God is the answer to the who question and science finds a "how" answer. And imo science goes too far in with the how answers and steps over into the sphere of theology,,,,,,,,, not on purpose however, it is just that it is wanting to find a naturalistic explanation for things that God has done and ends up defining things in a naturalistic way. eg science can see what chemicals do and what a brain does and ends up defining life and consciousness in terms of chemicals. All science can do is describe how a body might have evolved chemically and what a brain does when it works. It cannot say what life or consciousness it.
In this way science starts trying to fill gaps with naturalistic answers when there really aren't naturalistic answers.

That is what you do not understand. Science has its rules. Its rules assume naturalistic explanations.

Therefore, if something is supernatural, there is no way science will find it, nor explaining it, without defeating itself, and stop being science.

So, all you are saying reduces to: science, and its rules, is not complete for what concerns finding all truths that could possibly exist.

Which begs the next question: where do you see things that require explanations that cannot possibly be explained naturalistically, with at least the same evidence and plausibility?

Any example?

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

It does. It is called naturalistic methodology.
And that does mean it excludes Gods and angels. Being the latter not belonging to the set.

False, Methodological Naturalism is at its foundation neutral to all subjective philosophical and religious beliefs that cannot presented in a hypothesis falsifiable by scientific methods.

That would be like saying that chess players do not exclude checkers. They do not. Different games. But whatever is achieved by checkers, has not been achieved by chess.

Yes chess players exclude checkers, So What?!?!?

That is what you do not understand. Science has its rules. Its rules assume naturalistic explanations.

Not complete. Science can potentially falsify any hypothesis that has a naturalistic explanation supported by objective verifiably evidence, nothing more.

Therefore, if something is supernatural, there is no way science will find it, nor explaining it, without defeating itself, and stop being science.

true

So, all you are saying reduces to: science, and its rules, is not complete for what concerns finding all truths that could possibly exist.

Only that which can be falsified by objective verifiable evidence. Science cannot falsify hypothesis of what 'could possibly exist beyond the physical world.

Which begs the next question: where do you see things that require explanations that cannot possibly be explained naturalistically, with at least the same evidence and plausibility?

Any example?

'Same evidence or plausibility? Vague subjective criteria needs explanation. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be falsified by scientific methods.

As hard as you try you cannot conflate 'Methodological Naturalism with the Naturalism of Philosophical Naturalism.

Square pegs do not fit in round holes.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm told that people that are possessed by demons don't know they are possessed, but others do. My questions are the same for those that know without a doubt those that are possessed by scientism. How do you know? You must have some truth that can be shared? Surely, given how often it is levied as an accusation or in response to some argument.

I'm told?!?!?! Credanility ends here.

 

[Brian2]

It does. It is called naturalistic methodology.
And that does mean it excludes Gods and angels. Being the latter not belonging to the set.

That would be like saying that chess players do not exclude checkers. They do not. Different games. But whatever is achieved by checkers, has not been achieved by chess.

Science is neutral as @shunyadragon said.

That is what you do not understand. Science has its rules. Its rules assume naturalistic explanations.

Therefore, if something is supernatural, there is no way science will find it, nor explaining it, without defeating itself, and stop being science.

So, all you are saying reduces to: science, and its rules, is not complete for what concerns finding all truths that could possibly exist.

Which begs the next question: where do you see things that require explanations that cannot possibly be explained naturalistically, with at least the same evidence and plausibility?

Any example?

Ciao

- viole

I understand that science has rules and assumes naturalistic explanations until shown otherwise.
And yes I am saying that science and it's rules are not complete for finding all thruths that could exist.
I see things that cannot be explained naturalistically through my faith in the existence of God and the supernatural. I could see those things also if I was open minded to the idea of God and the supernatural. After all there is plenty of witness reports of things that could be true and seen as supernatural.
So if my world view is not limited to the materialist world view then the non materialist world view is a possibility.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, let's see -- It is said that a while back, a Greek philosopher named Anaximander speculated that humans must have descended from some other type of creature whose young could survive without any help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, let's see -- It is said that a while back, a Greek philosopher named Anaximander speculated that humans must have descended from some other type of creature whose young could survive without any help.

This is probably the first time that you used the word "speculate" properly. Anaximander was speculating because he did not have an explanatory model that he tested and confirmed. This is a simple idea that you just do not seem to understand. Once one has a testable model that explains a concept, and it has been tested and confirmed to be correct then by definition one is no longer speculating.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is probably the first time that you used the word "speculate" properly. Anaximander was speculating because he did not have an explanatory model that he tested and confirmed. This is a simple idea that you just do not seem to understand. Once one has a testable model that explains a concept, and it has been tested and confirmed to be correct then by definition one is no longer speculating.

You sure that human babies don't need help to survive?

 

[ratiocinator]

You sure that human babies don't need help to survive?

I suggest a refresher course in reading English for comprehension.

 

[gnostic]

God's killing people for reasons you don't understand does not mean that God is evil.

really?

are you forgetting King David committing adultery with already married woman, got Bathsheba pregnant, had her husband killed. Instead of killing David & Bathsheba, god had their baby son killed from slow agonising illness.

The only innocents were Uriah and David's son in this story, and yet god had a baby killed. If that’s not evil, then aren’t your morality is just as warped and as bad as the bible?

 

[gnostic]

More I read about lava and sediment, lava erupted is sediment. Plain, simple, and rock.

then geology is another science that you are clueless about.

so you don’t understand biology, you don’t understand chemistry, you don’t understand physics, you don’t understand astronomy, and now you reveal you are illiterate in geology too.