What is the science-religion conflict about?
The OP isn't about evolution though. It's about science as a whole.
Well, for one, I'm not one of "you guys". I've stumbled into this discussion more or less by accident, first by trying to clarify to summerset the example Aaron gave, then just focussing on a remark by Husker that seems somewhat distant to the subject matter. Overall, this entire discussion is fairly alien to me. For all intents and purposes, there is no science-religion conflict in Germany.***
For two, I feel you're shifting goalposts when you phrase it like "If you want to claim that the assumptions/conclusions of science are wrong...", "making mistakes" "you have the antidote" and similar. At the very least it's unnecessarily polarizing - I doubt anyone in his right mind would claim that the scientific conclusions that science draws are wrong or even incomplete/misguided.
If I understand the discussion correctly, what's under debate is whether the metaphysical claims/assumptions implicit in "the science" are complete/appropriate (not even wrong). In that regard, your example fails as here, dualists (ultimately) reject the premises of materialists and don't just consider them incomplete.
Second, the debate is not just about the metaphysical claims. The ball argument Aaron presented and to which you've nodded along, for example, Aaron claims gives us reason to be skeptical even of scientific claims as uncontroversial and simple as the noble gas laws (e.g. "if a container of gas is reduced in volume the pressure will increase"). Do you agree with Aaron that we have good reason to be skeptical of such a claim, because of the metaphysical assumption of materialism?
Third, even disregarding this, the request to "back this up", when it comes to criticizing those assumptions doesn't mean "you'll have to provide an alternative approach that's equally potent" or "you'll have to be an expert in the field" or w/e. Just as a music critic doesn't have to be a composer for his critique to be potentially correct, a critique of the metaphysical assumptions of science does not rely on me being a scientist.
Likewise if I want to say "the metaphysical assumptions of contemporary OT scholars make their exegesis distrustworthy/false/etc" then you are going to want me to explain myself a little. No?
Otherwise all this boils down to is "atheism is true", "no it's not" and we can do away with the chat about science.
Getting worked up about it and viewing it as an "attack on science" (personally, I find the language you also used earlier ["clearly attacking; attacking legitimacy -- wtf!?] in this regard somewhat weird) and denigrading such criticism as "impotent and petulant foot-stamping", you're simultaneously missing the point and somewhat disqualifying yourself.
As for the rest, all "you" have to do to make it sound less impotent and petulant is give a good reason why we should believe that metaphysical assumption X, Y, Z makes science false or untrustworthy, or whatever it is that is being claimed. Or even a reason why the metaphysical assumption is false. Something!
Not really. But Zumby's covered it in his post above.
I don't think you are following these arguments at all well.
Likewise if I want to say "the metaphysical assumptions of contemporary OT scholars make their exegesis distrustworthy/false/etc" then you are going to want me to explain myself a little. No?
I'm going to put this down to translation, but it is perfectly standard to use the word "attack" in this context. "I attack premise 2 of the argument", "After I finish this essay I'm going to attack the housework" etc.
As for the rest, all "you" have to do to make it sound less impotent and petulant is give a good reason why we should believe that metaphysical assumption X, Y, Z makes science false or untrustworthy, or whatever it is that is being claimed. Or even a reason why the metaphysical assumption is false. Something!
As for the underlined, obv. there are none. If that's what's being discussed, then I'm out (and probably shouldn't have entered).
That's not very convincing. You've asserted that the claim that mutations are random is an unfounded assumption. I've shown that it is an experimentally-confirmed conclusion. Pointing out that scientists have a specific definition of "random" in mind doesn't help your case. Your assertion is false, in light of how scientists use the term.
Back to well named and dereds point; to accept your claim is a de facto rejection that we have reason to believe scientific claims.
It is still changing the scope of Sommerset's comment. If a non-physical source interacts with the physical world then we could conclude that a non-physical force exists by examining the phenomena.
But if it doesn't interact with the physical world then it might as well not exist (in the same way that existing non-interacting naturalistic forces "might as well not exist".)
Who talked about "the intents and purposes of science"? This is sub-Booshian at best. "all intents and purposes" is an idiom that makes Sommersets claim equivalent to "if something has no impact it might as well not exist".
Who talked about "the intents and purposes of science"? This is sub-Booshian at best. "all intents and purposes" is an idiom that makes Sommersets claim equivalent to "if something has no impact it might as well not exist".
If it the concept to which "intention" refers is not well-defined enough to study then it isn't well-defined enough to conclude science can't study when properly defined. And this is another Boosh-esque changing of your argument. You've got from "science can never detect intention" to "er, well we don't really know what intention means". Poor.
Same evasion again. You've been presenting arguments that the scientific method can't even make true statements about the noble gas laws. This is directly equivalent to not "trusting math" in the analogy.
No, it's not.
OrP's OP is about how religious adherents embrace science in general, with the exception of certain things that have social/moral implications.
OrP's OP is about how religious adherents embrace science in general, with the exception of certain things that have social/moral implications.
Except that his point regarding this specific issue - as far as I can see - fails.
Yes, science as a whole. You were the one narrowing it down to evolution to make Fret's (poor) analogy try to fit.
We'll have to disagree on that one. If those doing the criticising have nothing to offer then they're not worth taking seriously. As I sit here at home on my laptop, communicating over the internet and watching the football on satellite tv I'm seeing real working examples of scientific endeavour.
Fair point. However, even if religion was a cause of scientific ignorance in this way, the study would still be enough to show that religion's opposition isn't to science in particular, but to education in general.
It's not similar. For those who criticise scientists for a supposed materialistic view and yet every day use the achievements of those scientists, what have they given us? If they believe scientists are failing to take into account other things (supernatural or whatever), then what have they achieved using that outlook that scientists have missed?
The first immortal cell line stems from Henrietta Lacks and was obtained under highly questionable conditions. Just very recently has her family gained back some say in how her cells are used.
That ethical criticism is in no way invalidated if it was levelled by an AIDS patient, who, very likely, has directly or indirectly profited from research done on her cell line. Similarly, criticizing methodological naturalism as wrong/incomplete/lacking/w_e does not commit me to living in a cave lest I become "argumentatively incoherent" or w/e.
I thought that was kind of obvious, but since it's the 2nd time you go there, I guess it bears mentioning.
I ran the above through CCTP (Conservative Christian Translation Program):
Thus, while it might be that Christians who have a greater distrust of non-religious people are primarily concerned with non-religious people who intervene in moral questions, this doesn't seem to be the case with non-religious people.In other words, I think we’d end up with a similar spread if we were to ask the non-religious if they want Conservative Christian scientists more involved in the debate. The non-religious would likely say “no” and Conservative Christians “yes.” It’s politics: no group wants to grant more political influence to another group if they perceive that group as having different and/or opposed interests or agendas from their own.
I think it's true that a lot of the conflict between "science" and "religion" amounts to a conflicting world view
at the same time, it's simply wrong to claim that evolution isn't science, and unless they can demonstrate that the science of evolution is wrong, it's fairly silly to object to it on the basis that they can't trust materialists while insisting they do trust the scientific method.
at the same time, it's simply wrong to claim that evolution isn't science, and unless they can demonstrate that the science of evolution is wrong, it's fairly silly to object to it on the basis that they can't trust materialists while insisting they do trust the scientific method.
Thus, under this hypothesis conservative Christians will accept the methods and conclusions of science just as readily as the non-religious except when there is an explicit disagreement with their religious beliefs. They also believe that while these are two different methods of gaining knowledge about the world, they are supplementary rather than contradictory methods.
You can also see here pretty easily what the argument is for why evolution is not proven science.
1) Biblically proven theories are true.
2) Special creation is a Biblically proven theory.
3) Thus, special creation is true.
4) Scientifically proven theories are true.
5) Evolution conflicts with special creation.
6) Thus, evolution is not a scientifically proven theory.
You could have an argument about what kinds of moral conclusions follow from evolution, if any, or about whether science curriculum is reaching conclusions that follow more from materialism as a world view than from actual science, but I don't think you can't really claim you trust science but reject evolution as unscientific, and in practice it seems clear that protestations aside, the attitude that creationists have towards the subject is also to be suspicious of the scientific method, not just materialism or materialists.
It's simply the observation that if one wants to criticise the assumptions of a wildly successful theory then one needs to demonstrate some sort of reason to think one's criticism is likely to be true. Think of it like a 2NL donk asserting that Phil Ivey is a bad poker player because "he makes false assumptions" about his opponents. At the very least you are going to want him to point to specific errors in Ivey's play. That's the sort of bar we are setting; point to the specific errors, give examples of additional data explained, etc etc. Now imagine the 2NL donk says "hey, I don't need to be able to compose symphonies to criticise Mozart". Obviously you are just going to ignore him and move on. Husker and I are asking for a reason not to do the same.
Yeah, that was the other point I forgot to mention that was kind of lol about your original post:
You do realize that this is - at best - a silly rhetorical trick, right?
The first immortal cell line stems from Henrietta Lacks and was obtained under highly questionable conditions. Just very recently has her family gained back some say in how her cells are used.
That ethical criticism is in no way invalidated if it was levelled by an AIDS patient, who, very likely, has directly or indirectly profited from research done on her cell line. Similarly, criticizing methodological naturalism as wrong/incomplete/lacking/w_e does not commit me to living in a cave lest I become "argumentatively incoherent" or w/e.
I thought that was kind of obvious, but since it's the 2nd time you go there, I guess it bears mentioning.
You do realize that this is - at best - a silly rhetorical trick, right?
The first immortal cell line stems from Henrietta Lacks and was obtained under highly questionable conditions. Just very recently has her family gained back some say in how her cells are used.
That ethical criticism is in no way invalidated if it was levelled by an AIDS patient, who, very likely, has directly or indirectly profited from research done on her cell line. Similarly, criticizing methodological naturalism as wrong/incomplete/lacking/w_e does not commit me to living in a cave lest I become "argumentatively incoherent" or w/e.
I thought that was kind of obvious, but since it's the 2nd time you go there, I guess it bears mentioning.
Or to develop the Phil Ivey analogy, if the criticism was ethical "Phil Ivey is morally wrong to take fishes money" it would be a different story compared to the epistemological "Phil Ivey makes bad poker assumptions" criticism.
Yeah, that was the other point I forgot to mention that was kind of lol about your original post:
You do realize that this is - at best - a silly rhetorical trick, right?
The first immortal cell line stems from Henrietta Lacks and was obtained under highly questionable conditions. Just very recently has her family gained back some say in how her cells are used.
That ethical criticism is in no way invalidated if it was levelled by an AIDS patient, who, very likely, has directly or indirectly profited from research done on her cell line. Similarly, criticizing methodological naturalism as wrong/incomplete/lacking/w_e does not commit me to living in a cave lest I become "argumentatively incoherent" or w/e.
I thought that was kind of obvious, but since it's the 2nd time you go there, I guess it bears mentioning.
You do realize that this is - at best - a silly rhetorical trick, right?
The first immortal cell line stems from Henrietta Lacks and was obtained under highly questionable conditions. Just very recently has her family gained back some say in how her cells are used.
That ethical criticism is in no way invalidated if it was levelled by an AIDS patient, who, very likely, has directly or indirectly profited from research done on her cell line. Similarly, criticizing methodological naturalism as wrong/incomplete/lacking/w_e does not commit me to living in a cave lest I become "argumentatively incoherent" or w/e.
I thought that was kind of obvious, but since it's the 2nd time you go there, I guess it bears mentioning.
Criticising mehodological naturalism with regards to the scientific method may not commit you to living in a cave but without being able to point to any sort of meanigful alternative, especially given the successes of this method, makes the criticism pretty meaningless.
The dog dies.
Sure. This, however, does not mean that the reasons have to be of the same kind as the reasons we use for considering the criticized theory to be successful.
Meaning that our reason for considering the scientific approach (or w/e) to be successful is not that we have some great metaphysical revelations as to the validity of methodological naturalism. The reason is simply that it works. It explains stuff. A possible criticism of those metaphysical presuppositions (or w/e) would not need to show how alternative presuppositions lead to time travel and cured cancer.
IoW: When the discussion is about the metaphysical assumptions implied in the scientific process, I'm making a philosophical/theological point. "But it works" is generally not a great counter to that.
Your analogy is actually a very good example:
For one (this might go back to me jumping into a discussion I'm unfamiliar with and have not really followed from the beginning), the analogy - for the point I'm arguing - would be a 2NL donk who claims that Durrrr is an incomplete player, because he doesn't have a clue about game theory. (Incidentally, as per a slew of 2p2-threads, a true assessment).
Nope. What I can legitimately ask him to do is support his claim. If he can point to 2p2-threads, then he's made his point. What you're asking is for him to point to specific errors in Durrrs play - which is misguided, as there might be none***. and Husker is asking him how much money he has won.
Now you could ask me what the equivalent of the 2p2-threads would be in the case of science, and I wouldn't have a good answer as I'm not regularly in the business of arguing the metaphysical validity/completeness of naturalism, but I don't need a good answer. What the example shows is that 2p2-threads is claim-supporting evidence of an entirely different sort of either net line or discernible errors in Durrrs actual play.
***If his opponents aren't unexploitable, he might be correct in never playing GTO. That wouldn't make the 2nl's criticism any less valid, despite the fact that if Durrrr were a more complete player, it would have no discernible effect on his net-line.
It's simply the observation that if one wants to criticise the assumptions of a wildly successful theory then one needs to demonstrate some sort of reason to think one's criticism is likely to be true.
Meaning that our reason for considering the scientific approach (or w/e) to be successful is not that we have some great metaphysical revelations as to the validity of methodological naturalism. The reason is simply that it works. It explains stuff. A possible criticism of those metaphysical presuppositions (or w/e) would not need to show how alternative presuppositions lead to time travel and cured cancer.
IoW: When the discussion is about the metaphysical assumptions implied in the scientific process, I'm making a philosophical/theological point. "But it works" is generally not a great counter to that.
Your analogy is actually a very good example:
Think of it like a 2NL donk asserting that Phil Ivey is a bad poker player because "he makes false assumptions" about his opponents.
At the very least you are going to want him to point to specific errors in Ivey's play.
Now you could ask me what the equivalent of the 2p2-threads would be in the case of science, and I wouldn't have a good answer as I'm not regularly in the business of arguing the metaphysical validity/completeness of naturalism, but I don't need a good answer. What the example shows is that 2p2-threads is claim-supporting evidence of an entirely different sort of either net line or discernible errors in Durrrs actual play.
***If his opponents aren't unexploitable, he might be correct in never playing GTO. That wouldn't make the 2nl's criticism any less valid, despite the fact that if Durrrr were a more complete player, it would have no discernible effect on his net-line.
Aaron, I feel like you are ignoring the obvious here. The primary debate about evolution is not about materialism, but about evolution. It is not just "by far an exception" for religious people to reject evolution. There is a conflict between what real honest-to-god science tells us about the development of species and the views of the 55% of evangelical protestants who believe that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Thus, while we might think that this disagreement is motivated by social or moral reasons, that doesn't make it any less a disagreement with the actual results of science.
Your analogy is actually a very good example:
For one (this might go back to me jumping into a discussion I'm unfamiliar with and have not really followed from the beginning), the analogy - for the point I'm arguing - would be a 2NL donk who claims that Durrrr is an incomplete player, because he doesn't have a clue about game theory. (Incidentally, as per a slew of 2p2-threads, a true assessment).
For one (this might go back to me jumping into a discussion I'm unfamiliar with and have not really followed from the beginning), the analogy - for the point I'm arguing - would be a 2NL donk who claims that Durrrr is an incomplete player, because he doesn't have a clue about game theory. (Incidentally, as per a slew of 2p2-threads, a true assessment).
I will add that the wrongness of the creationists is very similar in nature to gritmonkey's wrongness. The difference is that Gritmonkey's "conclusion" about evolution happens to align with the scientific conclusion. It says nothing about his ability to articulate even a meaningful level of comprehension about what he's actually talking about.
And it's still not "science as a whole."
***with GT, that link was implicitely assumed to be mutually agreed upon.
Do you want to substitute "game theory" with "having a smoothie every day during his morning piss"? Be my guest. It would still be fallacious to ask the donk for specific errors in Durrrs play. The correct approach would be - just as in the example - to ask him for evidence linking smothies and completeness as a poker player*** and evidence that Durrr doesn't have a smoothie.
***with GT, that link was implicitely assumed to be mutually agreed upon.
***with GT, that link was implicitely assumed to be mutually agreed upon.
I will add that the wrongness of the creationists is very similar in nature to gritmonkey's wrongness. The difference is that Gritmonkey's "conclusion" about evolution happens to align with the scientific conclusion. It says nothing about his ability to articulate even a meaningful level of comprehension about what he's actually talking about.
Obviously I don't care about gritmonkey in particular, but I hope this example shows why just pointing out that people are ignorant about evolution in general doesn't doesn't get rid of the conflict.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE