4 professor's view on science and faith

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
HappyFlappyTheist
Established Member
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:47 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Willamsburg, VA

Re: 4 professor's view on science and faith

Post by HappyFlappyTheist »

Image
pulvis sum
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 4 professor's view on science and faith

Post by PaulSacramento »

Image
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: 4 professor's view on science and faith

Post by Audie »

Already did. Ya been dealt.

I recommend a big slice of Be boppa rebop rhubarb pie.
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 4 professor's view on science and faith

Post by PaulSacramento »

I do love rhubarb pie :)
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: 4 professor's view on science and faith

Post by Audie »

PaulSacramento wrote:I do love rhubarb pie :)
Do you understand why I'd say that speaking of "scientific facts' beyond maybe
a researcher saying "it is a fact that this is my data"

or

speaking of "inviolate laws" is strictly for people who really dont know their subject matter?
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 4 professor's view on science and faith

Post by PaulSacramento »

Audie wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:I do love rhubarb pie :)
Do you understand why I'd say that speaking of "scientific facts' beyond maybe
a researcher saying "it is a fact that this is my data"

or

speaking of "inviolate laws" is strictly for people who really dont know their subject matter?
Yes, but do you understand that anyone that subscribes to a naturalist view is,basically, doing just that.
And that is what the statement is addressing.
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: 4 professor's view on science and faith

Post by Audie »

PaulSacramento wrote:
Audie wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:I do love rhubarb pie :)
Do you understand why I'd say that speaking of "scientific facts' beyond maybe
a researcher saying "it is a fact that this is my data"

or

speaking of "inviolate laws" is strictly for people who really dont know their subject matter?
Yes, but do you understand that anyone that subscribes to a naturalist view is,basically, doing just that.
And that is what the statement is addressing.



I understand that some will choose to construe it that way.

I get the feeling you are saying indiredtly as it may be that all who do not hold to
views that include the supernatural are irrational.

materialist view that events contrary to the laws of science just can’t happen is a metaphysical doctrine, not a scientific fact.

I am not sure you do understand my objection to those rather weird statements quoted.

As said earlier about facts. This view is only for uneducated people. Going after "naturalists"
has all the charm of me going after "christians' for some view I might choose to say they have.

Whatever a "naturalist" is supposed to be besides a label to stick where one will.


What’s more, the doctrine that the laws of nature are “inviolable” is not necessary for science to function.

The veriest beginner knows that "laws of nature' are human constructs based on limited data. "Doctrines" are for the religious.

The concept of inviolable laws being necessary to science is so upside down and backwards, who even comes up with such things?
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 4 professor's view on science and faith

Post by PaulSacramento »

Audie, did you see the definitions of naturalism?
The naturalist philosophy claims such things, that is the point.

The comment that "events contrary to the laws of science just can’t happen is a metaphysical doctrine, not a scientific fact" is true.
To state that an event outside the KNOWN scientific laws simply can NOT happen, is a statement that is metaphysical. It is not a scientific fact ( or anything scientific) even though naturalist state it as such.

There are NOT comments against science ( the writer of the article IS a scientist), these are comments against naturalism ( epicureanism even).
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: 4 professor's view on science and faith

Post by Audie »

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie, did you see the definitions of naturalism?
The naturalist philosophy claims such things, that is the point.

The comment that "events contrary to the laws of science just can’t happen is a metaphysical doctrine, not a scientific fact" is true.
To state that an event outside the KNOWN scientific laws simply can NOT happen, is a statement that is metaphysical. It is not a scientific fact ( or anything scientific) even though naturalist state it as such.

There are NOT comments against science ( the writer of the article IS a scientist), these are comments against naturalism ( epicureanism even).
"Naturalism" seems to subdivide in ways that do not entertain me to read about.
What’s more, the doctrine that the laws of nature are “inviolable” is not necessary for science to function.
Keeping it simple here, can some "naturalist" somewhere be demonstrated to hold to such a silly idea as "inviolate laws of nature" or think they are "necessary for science to function".
Post Reply