In praise of Darwin and the spirit of inquiry

[JoeTheJuggler]

Be careful, you don't want to be caught up in the analogy.
I made no analogy.

I pointed out that what Hertzblut suggested might be the realm of religion does not belong exclusively to religion. (This in addition to the more important point that religion has not limited itself to that realm.)

[paximperium]

Sure, what people belief God's will is, is an empirical observation. Whether they are right or wrong, isn't.
So there isn't?


Science describes different social rules, but doesn't prescribe any of those. In contrast to religion.
Religion prescribes social rules based on "God's will"?

[Stone Island]

They are both true statements.
On what basis do you want me to make this judgment of wrong vs. correct?
Maybe a distinction between the two is to be more feverently hoped for than reasonably expected. Suffice to say, if it can be made at all, it cannot be made on strictly scientific grounds.

[Herzblut]

Religion prescribes social rules based on "God's will"?
Yes.

[Stone Island]

Please explain.

"Sir, we noticed that you had sex with your daughter. Please explain."

"Well, my brain chemistry told me to."

"Do you think it was a good thing that you had sex with your daughter?"

"Well, my brain chemistry told me to."

The question being begged/raised/ignored was whether was good, not what your brain-chemistry told you.

[Stone Island]

Stone Island seems to think we asserted that it does not exist. He responds to things I never said with some regularity.

I don't care whether you say them regularly or not, if you said it at all is what I find to be important.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe a distinction between the two is to be more feverently hoped for than reasonably expected. Suffice to say, if it can be made at all, it cannot be made on strictly scientific grounds.

And there was a time when science couldn't explain plenty of other things. I find it presumptuous to assume that the prescriptive realm is one that only religion can answer questions about.

Biology has made inroads into the study of morality. (Mirror cells, for one thing.) I don't claim that it necessarily will displace religion as a source of prescriptive "truths", but it might happen. Again, it would be in keeping with the historical trend.

Even if it doesn't, religion is not the sole source of prescriptive "truths".

And, more important to the discussion at hand, religion has not limited itself to making claims about prescriptive "truths".

BTW, you guys conceding the whole natural world/ supernatural world thing?

[Stone Island]

Sure, just so long as you remember that a lack of evidence against isn't evidence for. At best, it is unknown.

And being unknown, we cannot speak of it as knowledge. Speculation, imagination, or even fantasy perhaps, but not knowledge.

Faith, maybe?

Perhaps philosophy could help up determine whether some people's beliefs are justified or true.

[paximperium]

Maybe a distinction between the two is to be more feverently hoped for than reasonably expected.
Maybe this, maybe that. What is the basis for your "maybe"?

Suffice to say, if it can be made at all, it cannot be made on strictly scientific grounds. Really? I base many of my moral choices on the doctrine of minimal harm to me and others because it benefits me.

Incest(not including that taboo of incestuous offspring) is inherently harmful to the child because it is almost always coercive and psychologically harmful to the child.

Now it is definitely possible for an adult child with the correct mindset to have sex with her/his dad(her/his mom) without any harm to themselves. In such a situation, I see no opposition to said relationship. Unfortunately, the chances of this benign relationship occurring vs. the potential of abuse justifies by opposition to incest.

That is my "scientific" justification and it is not based on "because it is icky" or a book told me so.

[paximperium]

Yes.
And God's Will is based on?

[Stone Island]

BTW, you guys conceding the whole natural world/ supernatural world thing?

What, I don't understand?

Science isn't the only method of gaining knowledge.

[Upchurch]

Religion prescribes social rules based on "God's will"?
Well, that's the claim. More likely, religion prescribes rules on society based on a specific set of social norms, the origin of which may be a particular interpretation of some scripture or some other arbitrary source.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Stone Island seems to think we asserted that it does not exist. He responds to things I never said with some regularity.
I don't care whether you say them regularly or not, if you said it at all is what I find to be important.

Oh yeah. . and Stone Island also purposely misunderstand perfectly clear grammar.

In this example, he parsed "regularly" to modify "said" rather than "responds". Obviously "never" and "regularly" can't both modify "said".

[paximperium]

"Sir, we noticed that you had sex with your daughter. Please explain."

"Well, my brain chemistry told me to."

"Do you think it was a good thing that you had sex with your daughter?"

"Well, my brain chemistry told me to."

The question being begged/raised/ignored was whether was good, not what your brain-chemistry told you.
Please read up on your logical fallacies. You are attempting a Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Brain chemistry leading to incest is an "is" not an "ought". An "is" does not lead to an "ought".

Define "good". What is your basis for "good"?

[Upchurch]

Faith, maybe?
Faith does not produce knowledge. If it did, there would not be such a wide variety of contradictory faiths.

Perhaps philosophy could help up determine whether some people's beliefs are justified or true.
Philosophy can only determine whether some people's beliefs are false. If a person's beliefs are consistent (i.e. not self-contradictory), then they may be true or they may be false. If a person's beliefs are inconsistent, then they are false.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What, I don't understand?

You seem to have abandoned support for the assertion that science makes claims about stuff inside the box, while religion only makes claims about stuff outside the box.

Instead, you've taken up a completely new tack (suggested by Hertzblut) saying that the non-overlapping magisteria are descriptive vs. prescriptive statements.

Am I to assume you concede that the description of the relationship of science and religion wrt the natural world given in the OP is not accurate?

[Herzblut]

And God's Will is based on?
Ask the clerks, please.

[paximperium]

Ask the clerks, please.
No answer?

[Stone Island]

Really? I base many of my moral choices on the doctrine of minimal harm to me and others because it benefits me.

Incest(not including that taboo of incestuous offspring) is inherently harmful to the child because it is almost always coercive and psychologically harmful to the child.

Now it is definitely possible for an adult child with the correct mindset to have sex with her/his dad(her/his mom) without any harm to themselves. In such a situation, I see no opposition to said relationship. Unfortunately, the chances of this benign relationship occurring vs. the potential of abuse justifies by opposition to incest.

That is my "scientific" justification and it is not based on "because it is icky" or a book told me so.

"Minimal harm" is still an antecedent to any scientific investigation.

It's an axiom that itself requires further justification.

[godless dave]

"Minimal harm" is still an antecedent to any scientific investigation.

It's an axiom that itself requires further justification.

Why does it require justification?

[paximperium]

"Minimal harm" is still an antecedent to any scientific investigation.

It's an axiom that itself requires further justification.
Sure. So?
Why do I have to justify "minimal harm"? It benefits me...nuff said.

[Stone Island]

Oh yeah. . and Stone Island also purposely misunderstand perfectly clear grammar.

In this example, he parsed "regularly" to modify "said" rather than "responds". Obviously "never" and "regularly" can't both modify "said".

I could be responding to things your said rarely.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, that's the claim. More likely, religion prescribes rules on society based on a specific set of social norms, the origin of which may be a particular interpretation of some scripture or some other arbitrary source.

And even so, religion has not limited itself to making prescriptive rules. Everything that is now the "descriptive" realm (of science) was once "explained" by religion.

As I've said several times, I agree that IF religion limited itself to things outside the box (outside the natural world), it could avoid conflict with science. But saying that religion does is not accurate.

As for the descriptive/prescriptive division of realms, I'm not so sure that's even possible. Even if it is, religion has not limited itself to the prescriptive realm (and must share it with secular approaches to morality).

[Stone Island]

You seem to have abandoned support for the assertion that science makes claims about stuff inside the box, while religion only makes claims about stuff outside the box.

Instead, you've taken up a completely new tack (suggested by Hertzblut) saying that the non-overlapping magisteria are descriptive vs. prescriptive statements.

Am I to assume you concede that the description of the relationship of science and religion wrt the natural world given in the OP is not accurate?

What you should assume is that we're trying to persuade you. If one line of argument doesn't work, then we might shift around and try and help you see it a different way.

[paximperium]

What you should assume is that we're trying to persuade you.
So your arguments have no point at all? That explains all your threads.

[Stone Island]

Sure. So?
Why do I have to justify "minimal harm"? It benefits me...nuff said.

Does it, really? I'm sure you think it does.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I could be responding to things your said rarely.
Real cute.

At least you've made a few posts in a row without abusing the term "begging the question".

[paximperium]

Does it, really? I'm sure you think it does.
Yes I do. Do you have any arguments left or are you just making small talk?

I can set my benchmarks of harm in many different places.

Economic? Sure. Children who are psychologically "broken" are less likely to be productive members of society and more likely to leach off my tax dollars and mug me.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What you should assume is that we're trying to persuade you. If one line of argument doesn't work, then we might shift around and try and help you see it a different way.

You mean if you find it impossible to defend one assertion, you abandon it for another.

The descriptive/prescriptive realms is not a different way of explaining the natural/supernatural worlds. It's a different assertion.

So. . .have you abandoned the first one?

[Upchurch]

What you should assume is that we're trying to persuade you.

Of what, exactly? That science and religion need not be in competition? I accept that.

If you are suggesting, however, that religion never and has never been in competition to explain the natural world with science, you are quite incorrect.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you are suggesting, however, that religion never and has never been in competition to explain the natural world with science, you are quite incorrect.

He's gone even further than that. He claimed that conflict between religion and science is impossible.

[Herzblut]

Now it is definitely possible for an adult child with the correct mindset to have sex with her/his dad(her/his mom) without any harm to themselves. In such a situation, I see no opposition to said relationship.
It's against the Law.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's against the law.

Not everywhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest).

Even so, you could make a utilitarian argument that risks of in-breeding hurt the gene pool as a source for these prohibitions. It's not necessarily something that is only in the realm of religion. In fact, I think you wouldn't get far in seeing these laws changed (one way or another) by making purely religious arguments in most of the developed world.

[godless dave]

It's against the Law.

How is that relevant?

I disagree with paximperium on this issue, but I don't see how legal status is relevant to morality.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There cannot be a contradiction between religion and science because they are two separate and distinct discussions. It would be a logical impossibility.

For being a "logical impossibility", there are an awful lot of exactly that sort of contradictory statements made in real life.

Again, the two creationist legal decisions I've mentioned, Aguillard v. Edwards and Kitzmiller v. Dover are examples.

I'm sure Stone Island will just say that those aren't "religion qua religion" (again, the No True Scotsman fallacy).

In the Dover case, the defendants were actually trying to conceal the religious nature of the rules they sought to impose on science teachers. The judge saw through it and pointed out that they were indeed trying to pass off religious views as science.

Whenever you think religion only makes claims about the supernatural, just ask yourself what "cdesign proponentsists" are.

[Herzblut]

Even so, you could make a utilitarian argument that risks of in-breeding hurt the gene pool as a source for these prohibitions.
In the same way, the argument could be used as a source to justify eugenics or euthanasia, right?

[Stone Island]

For being a "logical impossibility", there are an awful lot of exactly that sort of contradictory statements made in real life.

I'm sure Stone Island will just say that those aren't "religion qua religion" (again, the No True Scotsman fallacy).


No true vegetarian eats meat!

Funny story. My wife was an some sort of trip to Baja California to look at rocks or moss or some such. The group made a big pot of stew. My wife was assured by the others that as they were vegetarians too, that the stew would meet her needs. When my wife came back for dinner, she took one look at the stew and said, "I can't eat this!" Why not?", they asked. "It's got meat in it!"

"Just chicken."

[Herzblut]

In the Dover case, the defendants were actually trying to conceal the religious nature of the rules they sought to impose on science teachers. The judge saw through it and pointed out that they were indeed trying to pass off religious views as science.

Good guy, he supported the notion presented in the OP. You ought to as well.

[Undesired Walrus]

No true vegetarian eats meat!


What possibly else is prayer, if not a process of asking God to intervene into the material world?

I don't know where you are hanging out, but the vast majority of the religous world throughout history saw the act of God in every illness and victory, every earthquake and plague, every triumph and disaster on Earth. Claiming anything less is souning naive.

For the religous equivalent of the Vegetarian Handbook, The Bible is full of clear violations of NOMA. What else could 'The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh away' mean if it wasn't God entering the box?

[JoeTheJuggler]

No true vegetarian eats meat!
Since you've used this argument before, I'll have to quote from the skeptic wiki article on the No True Scotsman (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/No_True_Scotsman) fallacy:
Exceptions to the Rule

When the amendment to the definition is actually a necessary condition for membership in the class, this type of argument is not a fallacy. For example:
Antagonist: "A vegetarian would never eat meat."
Protagonist: "But my friend Avinder eats hamburgers all the time."
Antagonist: "I wouldn't exactly call Avinder a vegetarian then."
This is not a fallacy since "not eating hamburgers", while not an explicit requirement of being a vegetarian, is a necessary condition. On the other hand, in the "Christian" example given above, "acting ethically" has not been established as a necessary condition of "being Christian"; in fact, this is the very matter under debate.

ETA: To apply it here: not making claims about the natural world is not a necessary condition of "being religion". In fact, it's the very matter under debate. So trying to define "religion" as not including religions that make claims about the natural world is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Good guy, he supported the notion presented in the OP. You ought to as well.
He pointed out that religion does not limit itself to claims of the supernatural.

The OP says that it does. Now, are you trying Stone Island's approach where if religion comments on the natural world they are not religion?

[paximperium]

In the same way, the argument could be used as a source to justify eugenics or euthanasia, right?
No because Eugenics does not work and I have absolutely no problem with euthanasia at all.

If, and that is a very likely if, when we get to genetically engineer humans(ie. Eugenics) tell what is inherently wrong with it?

A utilitarian answer is apparent. What's yours?

[paximperium]

No true vegetarian eats meat!

Funny story. My wife was an some sort of trip to Baja California to look at rocks or moss or some such. The group made a big pot of stew. My wife was assured by the others that as they were vegetarians too, that the stew would meet her needs. When my wife came back for dinner, she took one look at the stew and said, "I can't eat this!" Why not?", they asked. "It's got meat in it!"

"Just chicken."
Really? Is an egg meat? What about fish? Or perhaps insects? How about vat grown "meat"?

[JoeTheJuggler]

In the same way, the argument could be used as a source to justify eugenics or euthanasia, right?
Yes it probably could. I would disagree with it (and it would be a very poor utilitarian argument).

Are you saying religion is the only source of moral and ethical standards?

Are you saying that all law is based on religion? (Or perhaps that all good law is based only on religion?)

Do you need to see a list of examples of morally abhorrent prescriptive statements made by religion?

[JoeTheJuggler]

What possibly else is prayer, if not a process of asking God to intervene into the material world?
Exactly.

I used just the one example (the blessing of the throats on the Feast of St. Blaize primarily because that feast day was just a couple weeks ago, and there is a Catholic Church named for St. Blaize not far from here, so it was on my mind.


I don't know where you are hanging out, but the vast majority of the religous world throughout history saw the act of God in every illness and victory, every earthquake and plague, every triumph and disaster on Earth. Claiming anything less is souning naive.

For the religous equivalent of the Vegetarian Handbook, The Bible is full of clear violations of NOMA. What else could 'The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh away' mean if it wasn't God entering the box?
Yup.

I tried pointing out that everything that is now in the realm of science was once explained by religion too.

Then Hertzblut re-interpreted the OP to be talking about descriptive vs. prescriptive statements rather than about the natural vs. supernatural worlds.

It's a moving target. . . .

[godless dave]

"You shouldn't have sex with your sister" is a prescriptive statement. As such, it's not a scientific statement.

"There is a conscious being who created the universe and he, she, or it does not want you to sleep with your sister" is a descriptive statement, and as such it is eligible for scientific investigation. It is a fact claim.

If religions only made the first kind of statements, then they wouldn't overlap with science. Such religions could theoretically exist, but they would be entirely unlike all the religions of human history.

[Herzblut]

He pointed out that religion does not limit itself to claims of the supernatural.

The OP says that it does.

Where? You have not yet pointed to the passage. Because it isn't there?


Now, are you trying Stone Island's approach where if religion comments on the natural world they are not religion?
No, but they are not science.

[Herzblut]

Then Hertzblut re-interpreted the OP to be talking about descriptive vs. prescriptive statements rather than about the natural vs. supernatural worlds.

I didn't change my interpretation at all, but instead stuck to what I said from the beginning:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4447489&postcount=149

[Undesired Walrus]

Also Stone, are the millions upon millions of sick and disabled people who travel to Lourdes every year some of these untrue 'Vegetarians'? They are actively going there in the hope that they will be cured by the Almighty, that he will reach into the box and destroy their cancer or reheal their joints.

These people are not the exception, they are the rule.

[Herzblut]

Yes it probably could. I would disagree with it (and it would be a very poor utilitarian argument).

Not in the view of eugenicists.


Are you saying religion is the only source of moral and ethical standards?

I? Where? My own ethics, secular humanism, has no religious roots at all. It evolved in me without ever being religious.

[paximperium]

Not in the view of eugenicists.
So what?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where? You have not yet pointed to the passage. Because it isn't there?
Yes, I did. Repeatedly. You seem to be the only person here who hasn't read this passage. I'll quote it yet again for you:

Here is a column about the compatibility of science and religion. Not only is there no incompatibility between science and religion; there can't be. Science is an attempt to understand the natural world. It has nothing to say about (1) whether there is a supernatural world or (2) what the supernatural world is like, if there is such a world. Think of the natural world as a box. Science makes claims about what's inside the box. It has nothing to say about what's outside the box. Religion makes claims about what's outside the box.
Inside the box is the natural world. Outside the box, therefore, is the supernatural.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Then Hertzblut re-interpreted the OP to be talking about descriptive vs. prescriptive statements rather than about the natural vs. supernatural worlds.
I didn't change my interpretation at all, but instead stuck to what I said from the beginning:


I didn't say you changed YOUR interpretation. I said you re-interpreted the OP to something about descriptive vs. prescriptive claims. The OP talked about inside or outside the natural world.

Also, if this has been your position all along, why were saying the examples I showed of religion making claims about the natural world were just the "fringe" or just "religious fundamentalism"?

[JoeTheJuggler]

"You shouldn't have sex with your sister" is a prescriptive statement. As such, it's not a scientific statement.

"There is a conscious being who created the universe and he, she, or it does not want you to sleep with your sister" is a descriptive statement, and as such it is eligible for scientific investigation. It is a fact claim.

If religions only made the first kind of statements, then they wouldn't overlap with science. Such religions could theoretically exist, but they would be entirely unlike all the religions of human history.

Very well said!

[GeeMack]

What possibly else is prayer, if not a process of asking God to intervene into the material world?


Might be that Stone Island knows prayer invariably fails and no god ever actually intervenes as a result of it. He might just admit that for that reason, prayer is fully outside the box.

[Herzblut]

I didn't say you changed YOUR interpretation. I said you re-interpreted the OP to something about descriptive vs. prescriptive claims. The OP talked about inside or outside the natural world.

You understand me wrong. I say, the OP limits itself to epistemic claims. It is beyond any doubt that religions make clear cut "inside" ethical type of claims and hence impact social reality massively.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Might be that Stone Island knows prayer invariably fails and no god ever actually intervenes as a result of it. He might just admit that for that reason, prayer is fully outside the box.

But we're not discussing whether or not the claims of religion are true or false (except when we go off on tangents). I'm disputing the assertion that religion makes no claims about the natural world.

Whether this type of prayer is effective or not is irrelevant. Whether Stone Island himself believes it is effective or not is also irrelevant. It's a fact that religion makes these kind of claims.

ETA: I do realize you're probably just teasing!

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is beyond any doubt that religions make clear cut "inside" ethical type of claims and hence impact social reality massively.

It is also beyond doubt that religion makes claims about plain old everyday natural phenomena--claims about stuff in the natural world other than just ethical type of claims.

[Herzblut]

But we're not discussing whether or not the claims of religion are true or false (except when we go off on tangents). I'm disputing the assertion that religion makes no claims about the natural world.

You're disputing a strawman. The OP doesn't make this assertion.

[Herzblut]

It is also beyond doubt that religion makes claims about plain old everyday natural phenomena--claims about stuff in the natural world other than just ethical type of claims.
As long as they don't conflict with science, what is the problem? Your actually making the bold claim that religious statements necessarily clash with science. I don't see any evidence for this claim at all.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're disputing a strawman. The OP doesn't make this assertion.

Yes, it does.

You're the only one with the "alternate" interpretation that it's about prescriptive vs. descriptive statements.

[JoeTheJuggler]

As long as they don't conflict with science, what is the problem? Your actually making the bold claim that religious statements necessarily clash with science. I don't see any evidence for this claim at all.

I'm not saying they necessarily clash with science. I'm saying exactly what Godless Dave eloquently said:

Such religions could theoretically exist, but they would be entirely unlike all the religions of human history.

I've said all along, I think it would be great if the situation described in the OP were true. (Then we'd take up Godless Dave's other point that there may not in fact be anything "outside the box".)

Unfortunately, that's not how it is. I am exposed to religious claims about the natural world that contradict scientific findings on a daily basis.

If it's different where you live, you are very fortunate.

[Stone Island]

Yes I do. Do you have any arguments left or are you just making small talk?

I can set my benchmarks of harm in many different places.

Economic? Sure. Children who are psychologically "broken" are less likely to be productive members of society and more likely to leach off my tax dollars and mug me.

Then they're as arbitrary as "God told me to."

[Stone Island]

"There is a conscious being who created the universe and he, she, or it does not want you to sleep with your sister" is a descriptive statement, and as such it is eligible for scientific investigation. It is a fact claim.
I think that Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification disagrees with you. He argues that from a verificationist point of view it's meaningless. There is no possible means of verifying that statement.

[Stone Island]

Also Stone, are the millions upon millions of sick and disabled people who travel to Lourdes every year some of these untrue 'Vegetarians'? They are actively going there in the hope that they will be cured by the Almighty, that he will reach into the box and destroy their cancer or reheal their joints.

These people are not the exception, they are the rule.

And they're waiting for miracles, which are supernatural events.

[Stone Island]

Might be that Stone Island knows prayer invariably fails and no god ever actually intervenes as a result of it. He might just admit that for that reason, prayer is fully outside the box.

**[plonk]**

(That's the sound of you hitting the bottom of my kill-file. Good bye!)

[Undesired Walrus]

And they're waiting for miracles, which are supernatural events.

Regardless, God is operating inside the box, which is what you are arguing against. Can you not see how claiming God is the architect of your receding tumor is in conflict with science?

Does the cosmic tuning argument fall into conflict with science? Almost certainly. And it is an argument stressed by a vast majority of educated theists. How can you ignore the vast history of witch trials, in which innocent women were (and are still) blamed for a poor harvest and every inexplicable illness?

It sounds like you are defending the dragon in your garage.

[GeeMack]

**[plonk]**

(That's the sound of you hitting the bottom of my kill-file. Good bye!)


That's one of the beautiful things about being a believer in magic and supernatural beings. Praying is a clear example of religion and the religious claiming that their supernatural world interacts with the natural. It rocks Stone Island's little world to consider it, so he dutifully slinks away in fear, whistling the theme music from Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Blissful ignorance, quite a luxury if you think about it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And they're waiting for miracles, which are supernatural events.

Miracles are a suspension of the laws of nature, but they are most definitely claims about the natural world. Walking on water, miracle healing, apparitions, resurrection from the dead, and so on, are all claims about stuff "inside the box".

Claims that are purely about "stuff outside the box" would be very limited indeed. Maybe notions of the state of your soul and salvation and such. Claims about the nature of God or angels--stuff that isn't known to exist. (If it's a claim about something known to exist, it is, by definition, a claim about the natural world.)

Even claims about "sin" are firmly rooted in the natural world. (Heard about California's Proposition 8?)

[Foster Zygote]

That's one of the beautiful things about being a believer in magic and supernatural beings. Praying is a clear example of religion and the religious claiming that their supernatural world interacts with the natural. It rocks Stone Island's little world to consider it, so he dutifully slinks away in fear, whistling the theme music from Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Blissful ignorance, quite a luxury if you think about it.

He's still reading your posts. He made the same power play with Slingblade and myself, yet he sent us PMs responding to posts we'd made. These weren't personal messages either, they were simply responses that could have been addressed in the relevant threads. He did the same to Joobz, whom I think has yet to be "dismissed" by him.

[Upchurch]

And they're waiting for miracles, which are supernatural events.
From a rhetoric point of view, that was a mistake. It directly contradicts your central thesis, i.e.:
Not only is there no incompatibility between science and religion; there can't be. Science is an attempt to understand the natural world. It has nothing to say about (1) whether there is a supernatural world or (2) what the supernatural world is like, if there is such a world. Think of the natural world as a box. Science makes claims about what's inside the box. It has nothing to say about what's outside the box. Religion makes claims about what's outside the box.
An event that happens in the natural world is a natural event. As such, it is describable by science. (At least, ultimately describable by science, even if not immediately.)

By describing a natural event (i.e. of the natural world) as having a supernatural origin, you have broken the conceptual model. You've attempted to understand the natural world through a supernatural explanation. You contradict yourself.

We may not be able to prove or disprove the existence or nature of a supernatural world, but we can logically disprove your argument through logic. It is internally inconsistent.

[paximperium]

Then they're as arbitrary as "God told me to."
And am I arguing that my criteria isn't arbitrary?
I'm a moral relatavist. I have justifications for my criteria and my ethics. I actually think about my moral choices.

I'm not a hypocrite in claiming some delusional supernatural superman makes me do things just because you read it in some book.

[Stone Island]

And am I arguing that my criteria isn't arbitrary?
I'm a moral relatavist. I have justifications for my criteria and my ethics. I actually think about my moral choices.

I'm not a hypocrite in claiming some delusional supernatural superman makes me do things just because you read it in some book.

Your arbitrary choice between arbitrary criteria is still arbitrary, no matter how much you think about it. Indeed, a long consideration, as opposed to acting from whim or instinct, is an arbitrary pose as well.

Given that, calling a Christian's arbitrary choice of an arbitrary criteria delusional seem to me to be a bit, well, arbitrary.

[Stone Island]

From a rhetoric point of view, that was a mistake. It directly contradicts your central thesis, i.e.:

An event that happens in the natural world is a natural event. As such, it is describable by science. (At least, ultimately describable by science, even if not immediately.)

By describing a natural event (i.e. of the natural world) as having a supernatural origin, you have broken the conceptual model. You've attempted to understand the natural world through a supernatural explanation. You contradict yourself.

We may not be able to prove or disprove the existence or nature of a supernatural world, but we can logically disprove your argument through logic. It is internally inconsistent.
I don't think so.

Actually, a miracle would be a supernatural event with a supernatural origin. People who ascribe natural events as having supernatural origins are probably mistaken (either about the event or its cause)

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think so.

Actually, a miracle would be a supernatural event with a supernatural origin. People who ascribe natural events as having supernatural origins are probably mistaken (either about the event or its cause)

Again, a miracle is a suspension of the ordinary laws of nature, but it is alleged to happen in the natural world ("inside the box"). In the supernatural realm, there are no natural rules, so there are no miracles.

ETA: Can you give one example of a miracle that doesn't happen in the natural world ("inside the box")?

[Stone Island]

The sixth of ten propositions from Dan Meyer's Faith and Theology (http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2009/02/ten-propositions-on-darwin-and-deity.html) blog:For those who would still insist, confounding the biblical Creator with Paley’s watchmaker, that Darwin remains the implacable enemy of Moses, I cannot resist referring to a lovely little letter Karl Barth wrote to his grandniece Christine, who had become disconcerted by a classroom discussion. “Has no one explained to you in your seminar,” Barth wrote, “that one can as little compare the biblical creation story and a scientific theory like that of evolution as one can compare, shall we say, an organ and a vacuum-cleaner – that there can be as little question of harmony between them as of contradiction?… The creation story deals only with the becoming of all things, and therefore with the revelation of God, which is inaccessible to science as such. The theory of evolution deals with what has become, as it appears to human observation and research and as it invites human interpretation… So tell the teacher concerned that she should distinguish what is to be distinguished and not shut herself off completely from either side.”

[Stone Island]

The second of ten propositions from Dan Meyer's Faith and Theology (http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2009/02/ten-propositions-on-darwin-and-deity.html) blog:
Should it be of concern to Christians that Darwin was never more than a nominal believer? Only if, rejecting universalism, you are concerned about the destiny of his immortal soul. Otherwise – well, are you concerned whether your surgeon, mechanic, or hair stylist goes to church? Of course not. Your only concern is that she wields a scalpel, wrench, or scissors with know-how and dexterity. So too with a scientist: one’s only concern should be that he is an honest and skilled practitioner of his craft. And Darwin wasn’t just an able and meticulous biologist, he was a bloody genius. If his theory of evolution by natural selection is the best theory in town that explains the evidence (palaeontological, morphological/taxonomical, molecular/genetic) – and it is – deal with it. Of course refute it on empirical grounds if you can, but don’t rubbish it because you don’t like its theological or moral implications, or because you have a political agenda. Fight science with science – not with the pseudo-science of creationism or the bad science of ID (not to mention the bad theology of both).

[Upchurch]

Actually, a miracle would be a supernatural event with a supernatural origin.
When a phenomenon occurs in the natural world, it is a natural event (i.e. having to do with the natural world). How do you define a supernatural event in the natural world? How would you differentiate it from a natural event?

What you are suggesting is literally a contradiction in terms.

People who ascribe natural events as having supernatural origins are probably mistaken (either about the event or its cause)
Indeed. For that reason, you should think very hard about how you answer the above questions.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The creation story deals only with the becoming of all things, and therefore with the revelation of God, which is inaccessible to science as such. The theory of evolution deals with what has become,

This bit is just plain wrong. Science can indeed explain origins or "the becoming" of things. For example, both Genesis and science offer explanations for the origin of species. In fact, science has done a pretty good job of explaining the origin of other stuff that Genesis purports to explain (the Earth, the Sun and stars, the oceans, etc.)

ETA: Another example: the Tower of Babel story gives us a "just so" story to explain why humans speak many different languages. Linguistics gives us a completely different explanation.

The main difference is that the religious explanations--those that come from revelation--aren't supported by the evidence.

Whether or not creationism or biblical literalism is "bad theology" is beside the point. In fact, by that standard, it's only relatively recently that any "good theology" existed, and that somehow came from the handed down revelation of "bad theology".

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, a miracle would be a supernatural event with a supernatural origin.
Again, this is not true except maybe for claims of "miracles" that are wholly outside the box (like God's grace saving your soul, or an archangel defeating Satan in a heavenly battle). And I would argue that these events are NOT miracles by definition because they don't involve the suspension of the laws of nature.


People who ascribe natural events as having supernatural origins are probably mistaken (either about the event or its cause)

I quite agree, but again, for purposes of this debate, whether their claims are true or false is irrelevant. The fact that they make these claims belies the assertion that religion and science operate in separate realms (outside vs. inside the natural world).

You claim that science and religion can't possibly come into conflict, yet there are plenty of examples of exactly that conflict. Your only way of dealing with them is to use the No True Scotsman fallacy and claim that those cases are either bad science or bad religion.

And for some reason you believe that bad religion is not religion. Can you say why this is?

[JoeTheJuggler]

ight science with science – not with the pseudo-science of creationism or the bad science of ID (not to mention the bad theology of both).

Good advice. But this advice wouldn't be necessary at all if the relationship between science and religion wrt the natural world were the way you describe it, Stone Island. You said contradiction and conflict is a "logical impossibility".

So why the need for this sort of advice?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Stone Island, what do you think a "miracle" is?

Here's the Wiki definition:
A miracle is a sensibly perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can only be explained by divine intervention, and is sometimes associated with a miracle-worker.

[Undesired Walrus]

As you have avoided it thus far Stone, I'll ask again: Do you deny that the fine tuning argument is in direct confrontation with science?

[paximperium]

Your arbitrary choice between arbitrary criteria is still arbitrary, no matter how much you think about it. Indeed, a long consideration, as opposed to acting from whim or instinct, is an arbitrary pose as well.
So? How is that a bad thing?
This is what theist has always failed to answer.


Given that, calling a Christian's arbitrary choice of an arbitrary criteria delusional seem to me to be a bit, well, arbitrary.What nonsense. If all you have left is equivocation, then sure, I'll grant you that. Christian morality is as arbitrary as a rational model but it is based on nonsensical delusion and is as valid as any other fantasy based belief.

Calling Christian ethics a delusional faith based fantasy is a completely valid conclusion. Believing in nonsense despite evidence on the contrary is called a delusion.

[Stone Island]

So? How is that a bad thing?
This is what theist has always failed to answer.

What nonsense. If all you have left is equivocation, then sure, I'll grant you that. Christian morality is as arbitrary as a rational model but it is based on nonsensical delusion and is as valid as any other fantasy based belief.

Calling Christian ethics a delusional faith based fantasy is a completely valid conclusion. Believing in nonsense despite evidence on the contrary is called a delusion.

I'll admit that global skepticism and nihilism will trump all claims to know anything.

Maybe I'm projecting, but you do seem keen to justify yourself. That's odd, isn't it?

[Stone Island]

Good advice. But this advice wouldn't be necessary at all if the relationship between science and religion wrt the natural world were the way you describe it, Stone Island. You said contradiction and conflict is a "logical impossibility".

So why the need for this sort of advice?

I'm think the end of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. That which can be said, can be said clearly. Where we cannot speak clearly, we should remain silent.

People make mistakes, thinking they're saying something when in fact they're not.

Religion and science are only possibly coherent when they're limited to their proper sphere.

[Stone Island]

An event that happens in the natural world is a natural event. As such, it is describable by science.
The point of a miracle is that there is no possible scientific explanation. If there is a possible scientific explanation then the phenomenon isn't a miracle. People tend to be sloppy and assign supernatural agency to any phenomenon that has a cause not immediately understood.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Religion and science are only possibly coherent when they're limited to their proper sphere.

I agree with that too.

And since there are no examples of religion staying in its proper sphere (outside the natural world), there are no coherent religions.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The point of a miracle is that there is no possible scientific explanation. If there is a possible scientific explanation then the phenomenon isn't a miracle. People tend to be sloppy and assign supernatural agency to any phenomenon that has a cause not immediately understood.

No. The point of a miracle as it is relevant to this discussion is that it is another example of religion making claims about the natural world.

ETA: Whether science can explain it or not is beside the point. Even if science can't offer an explanation, the claim of religion that the phenomenon (in the natural world) is a miracle disproves the assertion that religion only makes claims about stuff outside the natural world.

FWIW, while science is limited to the natural world (inside the box), it doesn't claim at any moment to be able to explain everything. The fact that science can't explain something does not support the claim of "miracle" as a true explanation. (That's the fallacy of argument from ignorance.) Again, for the discussion here, whether the claim of "miracle" is true or not is beside the point. The point is that it is another example of religion making a claim about stuff in the natural world (the phenomenon).

[Stone Island]

No. The point of a miracle as it is relevant to this discussion is that it is another example of religion making claims about the natural world.

ETA: Whether science can explain it or not is beside the point. Even if science can't offer an explanation, the claim of religion that the phenomenon (in the natural world) is a miracle disproves the assertion that religion only makes claims about stuff outside the natural world.

FWIW, while science is limited to the natural world (inside the box), it doesn't claim at any moment to be able to explain everything. The fact that science can't explain something does not support the claim of "miracle" as a true explanation. (That's the fallacy of argument from ignorance.) Again, for the discussion here, whether the claim of "miracle" is true or not is beside the point. The point is that it is another example of religion making a claim about stuff in the natural world (the phenomenon).
A miracle isn't a claim about the natural world. That's the miraculous bit.

In addition, you're mistaking what science can't explain because it doesn't have sufficient evidence a the time, and what science can't possibly explain.

[JoeTheJuggler]

A miracle isn't a claim about the natural world. That's the miraculous bit.

You're obviously using a different definition of "miracle" than the rest of us.

At least a couple of us have provided the definition of the term as we're using it. It corresponds to the way most English versions of the Bible use the term ("the signs and miracles" performed by Jesus, for example).

Again, can you give some examples of a miracle that does not involve a claim about the natural world?

Here are several that do: Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana. Jesus' miracle of the loaves and fishes, the miracle cures alleged to have happened at Lourdes, Moses raising his staff causing the waters of the Red Sea to retreat while the Israelites crossed, Moses' staff turning into a snake and back, Moses striking the rock and causing water to come forth, and so on.

All of these are claims about stuff "inside the box"--observable phenomena of the natural world.

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, when science can disprove the claim of "miracle" it is still a religious claim about the natural world. People really considered Peter Popoff's ability to recite information about the people who came to his faith healing sessions to be miraculous. Again, it was an example of religion making a claim about the natural world. In this case, the claim was proven wrong. It was, nevertheless, a religious claim about stuff in the natural world.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's Merriam Webster's definitions of "miracle (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle)":

1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

All three of these describe stuff that's "inside the box".

[Undesired Walrus]

As you have avoided it thus far Stone, I'll ask again: Do you deny that the fine tuning argument is in direct confrontation with science?

Stone?

[Herzblut]

Religion and science are only possibly coherent when they're limited to their proper sphere.
I think this wording is agreeable.

[paximperium]

Maybe I'm projecting, but you do seem keen to justify yourself. That's odd, isn't it? Ouch, such a stinging ad hominem. It has completely invalidated me...oh wait, it hasn't.

Is that all? I thought you actually has some sort of argument? Oh wait, you never do. I'm just keen to show how false and hypocritical your "arguments"(more like weaseling insinuations) are. Sorry, I hate dishonest arguments.

[paximperium]

Religion and science are only possibly coherent when they're limited to their proper sphere. I completely agree therefore religion should keep their little sphere of fantasy. If people treated religion as seriously as Lord of Rings, there wouldn't be a problem at all.

[paximperium]

I think this wording is agreeable.
Since religion never limits itself to magic only, this statement of course is inherently false.

[Herzblut]

If people treated religion as seriously as Lord of Rings, there wouldn't be a problem at all.
I'm treating the Rings very seriously.

[Herzblut]

Again, can you give some examples of a miracle that does not involve a claim about the natural world?

You assume that science has an interpretive dominance about everything natural? Well, it doesn't. There is no reason for religion or philosophy to hold back interpretations of the natural world. Especially of the subject and its role in society or in the world or what have you.

Talking miracles, say a small child is accidentally falling on the rails and a train is rapidly approaching and the train driver is bringing it to stop in the very last moment.

I wouldn't know why you couldn't believe that "God has saved that child" without conflicting with science in the least. Scientifically, there is no need for explanation.

[paximperium]

I wouldn't know why you couldn't believe that "God has saved" that child without conflicting with science in the least.
Because that is as rational as saying magic/pixies/invisible goblins saved the child.

Scientifically, there is no need for explanation.
That is false.

So "miracles" which lead to suspension of the laws of reality has no need for explanation? Not very curious or even rational are you?

[Herzblut]

Because that is as rational as saying magic/pixies/invisible goblins saved the child.

Correct, if you believed in lifesaving pixies that would be equally rational.


That is false.

So "miracles" which lead to suspension of the laws of reality has no need for explanation? Not very curious or even rational are you?
What explanation do you want? For what? Why is it against the laws of nature if a train stops?

[paximperium]

Correct, if you believed in lifesaving pixies that would be equally rational.
Hence your mindset is harmful and just retards human progress.


What explanation do you want? For what?
Why is it against the laws of nature if a train stops?
You mean claiming that magic somehow prevented to death of a child as an explanation does not bend or violate the laws of nature?

[Foster Zygote]

I don't think so.

Actually, a miracle would be a supernatural event with a supernatural origin. People who ascribe natural events as having supernatural origins are probably mistaken (either about the event or its cause)

Have you any evidence of any supernatural event happening outside human imagination?

[Foster Zygote]

I'll admit that global skepticism and nihilism will trump all claims to know anything.
Nice attempt to conflate skepticism with cynicism. You aren't even feigning logic at this point.

Maybe I'm projecting, but you do seem keen to justify yourself. That's odd, isn't it?
More like "ironic". Skeptics require evidence. your failure to provide any evidence that the supernatural even exists is not the fault of skeptics.

[Upchurch]

The point of a miracle is that there is no possible scientific explanation.
On the contrary, a "miracle" in the natural world is one for which there is no apparent scientific explanation at the time. At one time, a solar eclipse was a miracle.

Regardless, if you are asserting that there is a phenomenon in the natural world that any scientific explanation is a priori wrong, then you are (1) applying religion inside the box and (B) presenting a conflict between science and religion. You are asserting religion's authority over what you had previously defined as science's domain: the natural world.


If there is a possible scientific explanation then the phenomenon isn't a miracle. People tend to be sloppy and assign supernatural agency to any phenomenon that has a cause not immediately understood.
This begs the question: Do you think real miracles occur?

Either miracles don't occur or your OP thesis is wrong.

[Herzblut]

You mean claiming that magic somehow prevented to death of a child as an explanation does not bend or violate the laws of nature?
You might want to look up the word "incommensurable" to understand your category fault.

Or explicitly quote a law of nature which contradicts "God has lent him a hand".

You can't, because these laws don't say a thing about the hands of supernatural beings. If you don't believe me, check it out. :D

[paximperium]

Yawn. I find wannabee post-modernist pseudo-philosphy to be as useful to society as religion.

Or explicitly quote a law of nature which contradicts "God has lent him a hand". Causality

You can't, because these laws don't say a thing about the hands of supernatural beings. If you don't believe me, check it out. :D
False. Anything that reacts or changes the natural world can be measured. Any "supernatural entity's" effect can be measured.

To not have any measurable effect means its effect does not exist.

[Foster Zygote]

A miracle isn't a claim about the natural world. That's the miraculous bit.
So, by your definition, a true miracle cannot involve the natural universe at all. All those claims about walking on water, restoring sight to the blind, healing the sick, feeding the multitude, rising from the dead etc. are just fairy tales told by people with vivid imaginations.

In addition, you're mistaking what science can't explain because it doesn't have sufficient evidence a the time, and what science can't possibly explain.
The gap that God and his miracles fit into just keeps shrinking all the time, doesn't it?

I'm near sure that you will not answer this question, but: Can you give an example of something that you consider to be a genuine miracle that science cannot possibly explain.

[Herzblut]

Yawn. I find wannabee post-modernist pseudo-philosphy to be as useful to society as religion.

Please pinpoint the particular law of nature from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

which explicitly contradicts the claim "God lent him a hand".

[paximperium]

Please pinpoint the particular law of nature from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

which explicitly contradicts the claim "God lent him a hand".
Yawn.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

So tell me. How does god "lend people a hand"? What is the mechanism? Where is the energy? Where does the energy come from?

[Herzblut]

Yawn.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

So tell me. How does god "lend people a hand"? What is the mechanism? Where is the energy? Where does the energy come from?
How to you prove a conservation law has been violated, or not? Were you there? The only empirical observation is that of a singular event where the location of the child coincides with the location before which the train came to stop. There is no postmortem analysis possible of any kind of supernatural intervention.

The obvious fact that you are rejecting obvious facts should make you suspicious of a dogmatic type of thinking you hold. Probably it doesn't, that's the nature of dogmatism and I see no sign of self-reflection in any of your statements.

Since disputing dogmatists is meaningless, I stop it here.

[paximperium]

How to you prove a conservation law has been violated, or not? Were you there?
So your only argument left is "prove me wrong"? Very very sad.

I don't have to prove anything. The believers have to. They have to prove where this magic energy comes from. To claim that magic caused it means that some unknown mystical process that does has interacted with reality thereby violating said law...no comeback?

The only empirical observation is that of a singular event where the location of the child coincides with the location before which the train came to stop. Therefore making a unsubstantiated claim based on absolutely nothing is irrational BS.

There is no postmortem analysis possible of any kind of supernatural intervention. Exactly therefore no one can claim it to be supernatural.

The obvious fact that you are rejecting obvious facts should make you suspicious of a dogmatic type of thinking you hold.
I apologize for being dogmatic when it comes to logic and rationality. Its a major flaw of mine :rolleyes:

Probably it doesn't, that's the nature of dogmatism and I see no sign of self-reflection in any of your statements. If all you have left is an ad hominem, it is very telling. When your entire argument fails and is shreaded every step of the way should tell you about your dogma.

I am very open minded to any argument based on logic and evidence, both of which you are sorely lacking.

Since disputing dogmatists is meaningless, I stop it here.
Bye!!!

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think this wording is agreeable.

Can you point out any religion that is coherent then?

(That is, any actual religion that limits itself to its realm--only making claims about stuff outside the natural world.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

You assume that science has an interpretive dominance about everything natural?

According to the OP and Stone Island's central point, the natural world is the realm of science, and religion makes no claims about it.

I certainly don't say that.


Talking miracles, say a small child is accidentally falling on the rails and a train is rapidly approaching and the train driver is bringing it to stop in the very last moment.

I wouldn't know why you couldn't believe that "God has saved that child" without conflicting with science in the least. Scientifically, there is no need for explanation.
Yes, I pointed out that when science has no explanation, the "goddidit" non-hypothesis can hide in that gap in our knowledge. (Heck people who invoke the supernatural explanation frequently argue that our ignorance makes their non-explanation true.)

However, "goddidit" is still a claim about the natural world. It is still a claim about stuff inside the box. So everytime someone invokes that explanation, it is an example of religion doing what the OP and Stone Island says it doesn't do---make claims about the natural world.

[JoeTheJuggler]

How to you prove a conservation law has been violated, or not? Were you there? The only empirical observation is that of a singular event where the location of the child coincides with the location before which the train came to stop. There is no postmortem analysis possible of any kind of supernatural intervention.

I think you two are arguing at cross purposes on this point.

Pax is saying that the claim "goddidit" means that you could add up all the known physical forces and they wouldn't result in the train stopping where it did. You'd need the supernatural force acting in the natural world (the claim of a miracle or "goddidit") to make the train stop where it did.

Hertzblut is saying that if you added up all the known physical forces, they do in fact result in the train stopping where it did. So the "goddidit" explanation is simply not necessary, but it's basically a meaningless claim (it doesn't mean God actually caused a supernatural force to act in the natural world) and therefore doesn't conflict with science.

ETA: And Hertzblut, you've failed to distinguish then between "God lent a hand" and "God wasn't involved in this incident at all". If there is no conflict with science, then the two circumstances (the ordinary and the miraculous) look exactly the same. Not only is the "goddidit" explanation not necessary, there is no room for it. (There's no force coming from an unexplained agent acting on the train.)

He's using a very different definition of "miracle" than any of the ones I've offered. I've cited Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster's dictionary. (I'm pretty sure this idea was originated by Hume.)

I'd like to see exactly what this other definition of "miracle" is--if it's not the supernatural intervening in the natural world.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The gap that God and his miracles fit into just keeps shrinking all the time, doesn't it?

I'm near sure that you will not answer this question, but: Can you give an example of something that you consider to be a genuine miracle that science cannot possibly explain.

I wish Stone Island and Hertzblut would at least offer definitions of the term "miracle" since they disagree with the conventional definition that it is a suspension of the laws of nature or divine intervention in the natural world.

From what Stone Island says, miracles only happen in the supernatural realm. So they would, as you observe here, be very severely limited to the sorts of claims I mentioned earlier (the nature of God, angelology, descriptions of heaven and hell, and so on).

Hertzblut seems to be using a different definition. He's admitting things that happen in the real world can be miracles, but he says that the "goddidit" claim need not be an intrusion of the supernatural on the natural. In other words, "goddidit" but the influence of God is in no way detectable or observable. Or "goddidit" in the natural world, but not by any natural world means.

This, of course, leads to a central problem with any claim of the supernatural in the natural world. How do the two interface? Just saying it's magic (i.e. "supernatural"), as Stone Island has been doing, ignores the fact that it's a claim about the natural world.

Most Christians, for example, believe that Jesus was an incarnation of God. That is, he was a natural world form of a supernatural being.

[Herzblut]

According to the OP and Stone Island's central point, the natural world is the realm of science, and religion makes no claims about it.

I certainly don't say that.

Nowhere in the OP it is stated explicitly that religion makes no claims about nature. It is your interpretation. I say that your view is extremely implausible, because religion does obviously make such claims, for instance about morality, and it is very unlikely the author is unaware of this well known matter of fact.


Yes, I pointed out that when science has no explanation, the "goddidit" non-hypothesis can hide in that gap in our knowledge.

The point is, there is no scientific explanation required. It is the human perception of an event being "stunning" which seeks some kind of cause or purpose. Objectively, there is nothing but coincidence. That's my firm conviction, I cannot positively prove that but I see no reason to change it. Likewise, a believer might have a different perception of the same event if it is personally reasonable within his world view. It is an intellectual assault and an act of bold arrogance to declare his/her view as inferior in any way, and that is morally wrong.


However, "goddidit" is still a claim about the natural world. It is still a claim about stuff inside the box. So everytime someone invokes that explanation, it is an example of religion doing what the OP and Stone Island says it doesn't do---make claims about the natural world.
Sorry, this is getting annoying. Please prove the assertion you're perpetrating! Pinpoint where the OP explicitly states what you claim it does explicitly state.

[Herzblut]

He's using a very different definition of "miracle" than any of the ones I've offered. I've cited Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster's dictionary.

You're not reading your own posts?

2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

Honestly, I find this is an annoying disputing culture.

[paximperium]

The point is, there is no scientific explanation required. It is the human perception of an event being "stunning" which seeks some kind of cause or purpose.
So all conclusions are equal no matter the rationale?
This is why I find such philosophical positions to be as intelligent as religion


Likewise, a believer might have a different perception of the same event if it is personally reasonable within his world view.
So what? So does a schizophrenic or any other insane person.


It is an intellectual assault to declare his/her view as inferior in any way, and that is morally wrong.
So it is morally wrong to tell someone that they are irrational because they are irrational?

[paximperium]

You're not reading your own posts?

2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

Honestly, I find this is an annoying disputing culture.
So you're using the colloquial pop-culture definition of "miracle" as the basis for the validity of your entire argument?

Why oh why am I not surprised by this?

This is similar to someone using the same poorly defined weaseling creationist definition of "theory" or "intelligently designed".

[Herzblut]

Can you point out any religion that is coherent then?

Is scientific research always coherent?

[paximperium]

Is scientific research always coherent?
A none-answer as usual. Your ability to use red herring is amusing. I can name one(or a multitude) scientific research that is coherent.

Can you even name one religion that is coherent? At least put on a show of attempting.

[paximperium]

Hertzblut is saying that if you added up all the known physical forces, they do in fact result in the train stopping where it did. So the "goddidit" explanation is simply not necessary, but it's basically a meaningless claim (it doesn't mean God actually caused a supernatural force to act in the natural world) and therefore doesn't conflict with science.
I think it is simpler than that. He is arguing that a "miracle" can be whatever the claimant wants it to be despite of evidence. He seems to be essentially arguing that all subjective conclusions is as valid as any one drawn from even objective sources. It is postmodernism at its dumbest.

[Stone Island]

A few selections from Democracy in America (Vol. 2), chapter 5, by Alexis de Tocqueville (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/ch1_05.htm):
It has been shown that at times of general culture and equality the human mind consents only with reluctance to adopt dogmatic opinions and feels their necessity acutely only in spiritual matters. This proves, in the first place, that at such times religions ought more cautiously than at any other to confine themselves within their own precincts; for in seeking to extend their power beyond religious matters, they incur a risk of not being believed at all. The circle within which they seek to restrict the human intellect ought therefore to be carefully traced, and beyond its verge the mind should be left entirely free to its own guidance.

Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.

In continuation of this same inquiry I find that for religions to maintain their authority, humanly speaking, in democratic ages, not only must they confine themselves strictly within the circle of spiritual matters, but their power also will depend very much on the nature of the belief they inculcate, on the external forms they assume, and on the obligations they impose.

And, then:
I showed in the first Part of this work how the American clergy stand aloof from secular affairs. This is the most obvious but not the only example of their self-restraint. In America religion is a distinct sphere, in which the priest is sovereign, but out of which he takes care never to go. Within its limits he is master of the mind; beyond them he leaves men to themselves and surrenders them to the independence and instability that belong to their nature and their age. I have seen no country in which Christianity is clothed with fewer forms, figures, and observances than in the United States, or where it presents more distinct, simple, and general notions to the mind. Although the Christians of America are divided into a multitude of sects, they all look upon their religion in the same light. This applies to Roman Catholicism as well as to the other forms of belief. There are no Roman Catholic priests who show less taste for the minute individual observances, for extraordinary or peculiar means of salvation, or who cling more to the spirit and less to the letter of the law than the Roman Catholic priests of the United States. Nowhere is that doctrine of the church which prohibits the worship reserved to God alone from being offered to the saints more clearly inculcated or more generally followed. Yet the Roman Catholics of America are very submissive and very sincere.

[paximperium]

A few selections from Democracy in America (Vol. 2), chapter 5, by Alexis de Tocqueville (http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7EHYPER/DETOC/ch1_05.htm):

And, then:
So? Do you have thoughts of your own?

BTW: About your little bottom signature:
Call me a troll, but you know what other group at least 39.5% of the population would say doesn't share their vision of society and at least 47.6% wouldn't want their children to marry? That's right. Child molesters. Make of that what you will.
I find it terrifying that not 100% of the American Public would think that of child molesters. Goes to show the "judgment" and relevance of public opinion.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is scientific research always coherent?

According to the statement, it's at least always possible for science to be coherent (since it is strictly limited to the natural world).

However, I can't think of any example of a religion that has limited itself to its turf (as Stone Island and the OP have described that turf) and refrained from making claims about the natural world. Therefore, according to that statement we both agreed to, there is no such thing as a "coherent" religion.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think it is simpler than that. He is arguing that a "miracle" can be whatever the claimant wants it to be despite of evidence. He seems to be essentially arguing that all subjective conclusions is as valid as any one drawn from even objective sources. It is postmodernism at its dumbest.

Something like that.

What I was trying to point out is you take the claim "Goddidit" to mean that without supernatural intervention, the train would not have stopped where it did. (A reasonable position, and one that actually agrees with the conventional definition of the term "miracle".)

Hertzblut is saying (I think) that according to science there is nothing to distinguish between what happened whether "Goddidit" or not.

My gloss to that is that it means Hertzblut's take on the "Goddidit" claim is that it really has no meaning. If there's no phenomenon lacking a scientific explanation, then there's no room for intervention. (In other words, if science doesn't lack an explanation, then there is no need or opportunity for intervention.)

Oh I suppose you could make some convoluted reading to get around it. For example, God temporarily suspended the natural working of friction acting between the rails and the wheels of the train and replaced it in equal amount with another force that was wholly supernatural ("the hand of God"?)

[paximperium]

Oh I suppose you could make some convoluted reading to get around it. For example, God temporarily suspended the natural working of friction acting between the rails and the wheels of the train and replaced it in equal amount with another force that was wholly supernatural ("the hand of God"?)
Ahhhh..but wouldn't that would be measurable?

[JoeTheJuggler]

And, then:
I showed in the first Part of this work how the American clergy stand aloof from secular affairs.

And that's a complete falsehood.

Have you heard of the Right to Life movement? Have you heard of Catholic Relief Services? Have you not seen Catholic universities? The Catholic Campaign for America? The Catholic Legal Immigration Network?

These are all examples of Catholic clergy being actively involved in secular affairs.

Now--care to answer a few of the questions that have been asked? How about providing an example of a miracle that is not a claim about the natural world? How about answering Undesired Walrus' question about the Fine-Tuning argument?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ahhhh..but wouldn't that would be measurable?
But indistinguishable from what we'd expect from friction.

Remember, both science and religion are being asked to explain this event after it happened. The suspension of the normal workings of friction only lasted for that moment, and in that place. You could test the friction of the wheels and rails thereafter, and you'd bet normal measurements.

But I don't think this is what people mean when they say "Goddidit". (It's sort of like saying "Goddidit but if he hadn't done it, the result would have been the same".)

ETA: I too take the claim "Goddidit" to mean that if it weren't for divine intervention in the natural world, the train would have killed the kid. (I think this agrees with your approach). This claim is in conflict with science.

[Herzblut]

ETA: I too take the claim "Goddidit" to mean that if it weren't for divine intervention in the natural world, the train would have killed the kid. (I think this agrees with your approach). This claim is in conflict with science.
Which conflict with which science?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which conflict with which science?

If we total up all the forces acting on the train and figure that, according to the science of physics, the train would have stopped right where it did, the claim that it would not have stopped there but for the intervention of God is in conflict.

[paximperium]

Which conflict with which science?
Physics.

[Herzblut]

If we total up all the forces acting on the train and figure that, according to the science of physics, the train would have stopped right where it did, the claim that it would not have stopped there but for the intervention of God is in conflict.
Disprove the claim that without divine intervention the driver would have made a quick look out of the left window causing a slight delay in stopping the train. God just prevented this and saved 3,663 milliseconds necessary and sufficient for the train to stop right in time without hitting the child in the given scenario.

I can make up thousands of similar claims, all of them completely unfalsifiable.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Disprove the claim that without divine intervention the driver would have made a quick look out of the left window causing a slight delay in stopping the train. God just prevented this and saved 3,663 milliseconds necessary and sufficient for the train to stop right in time without hitting the child in the given scenario.

I can make up thousands of similar claims, all of them completely unfalsifiable.

That's not what I said I took the term "miracle" to mean. I took it to mean that without God's intervention the train would not have stopped where it did.

At any rate, claiming that a supernatural being (God) took possession of the driver is also a claim about the natural world. This claim contradicts what we know about neuroscience. (Is there a mechanism for a supernatural entity to intervene with the function of the driver's motor nervous system?)

And again, claiming that God intervened to prevent the death is a claim about the natural world. It is a claim about stuff "inside the box" in contradiction to B-J's description given in the OP.

[Herzblut]

That's not what I said I took the term "miracle" to mean. I took it to mean that without God's intervention the train would not have stopped where it did.

Huh?


At any rate, claiming that a supernatural being (God) took possession of the driver is also a claim about the natural world. This claim contradicts what we know about neuroscience.

Provide neuroscientific evidence that god cannot affect a human affect.


(Is there a mechanism for a supernatural entity to intervene with the function of the driver's motor nervous system?)

Yes. It is a divine kind of whatever.


It is a claim about stuff "inside the box" in contradiction to B-J's description given in the OP.
False.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Huh?
You seem to have trouble with the language. I'm saying the "it's a miracle" claim says that even with everything happening as it did, it took a direct intervention to make the train stop where it did.


Provide neuroscientific evidence that god cannot affect a human affect.
We know the electrochemical processes that cause neurons to fire. We've never seen a motor neuron fire without those processes happening. For example, on the axon hillock where the inputs are all "summed", that sum must reach a threshold level for the neuron to fire. For the "goddidit" hypothesis to be true, you're saying that a neuron can fire even when that threshold level is not reached. This contradicts what we know about neuroscience.

It really doesn't help that you make the divine intervention something small (like messing with neurons) or something large--like a giant invisible hand stopping a train.

ETA: At any rate, you simply can't simultaneously argue that the divine can affect the natural world and say that religion doesn't make claims about the natural world (as BJ's quote in the OP states).


Yes. It is a divine kind of whatever.
And how is this distinguishable from a completely meaningless statement?

ETA: A "divine kind of whatever" that can affect things in the natural world? Sounds like something outside the box intervening inside the box.

False.
No. . .it's true, Hertzblut. Believe it or not, the train, the driver, the tracks, the little girl--all of these are part of the natural world. Unless the claim that this was a miracle doesn't involve or concern these things, then my statement is true.

Claiming that the event was a miracle is a religious claim about stuff "inside the box".

[GeeMack]

So, by your definition, a true miracle cannot involve the natural universe at all. All those claims about walking on water, restoring sight to the blind, healing the sick, feeding the multitude, rising from the dead etc. are just fairy tales told by people with vivid imaginations.


Now you're talkin'.

[Herzblut]

Claiming that the event was a miracle is a religious claim about stuff "inside the box".
But not contradicting science.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But not contradicting science.

Where in the OP does it make the claim that religion never contradicts science?

For that matter, Stone Island made the claim that it's impossible for science and religion to conflict.

These are what I disagree with and have amply proven to be false statements.

I don't care to chase your ever moving goalposts.

ETA: FWIW, I have already shown that supernatural claims about the natural world are either in conflict with science or relegated to the gaps in science. You seem to be making a case that wherever a claim unfalsifiable (in the gaps of science OR outside the natural world altogether as with angelology), that is part of the realm of religion. Fine, as long as you also admit (back to Godless Dave's first obersvation), that that which is unfalsifiable may not exist at all. At any rate, religion has not limited itself to making claims about that which is unfalsifiable.

[Foster Zygote]

Stone Island, can you give an example of what you consider to be a genuine miracle that is impossible for science to explain?

[Holler Hoojer]

No, I know what outside the box means. I don't think you do, though.

The existence of God, the existence of heaven of hell, the existence of souls, the 2nd coming, etc... aren't scientific claims. Let's repeat that: they aren't scientific claims. Religious folks hold them by faith alone. They were never in the box to begin with.

Christians hold them to be true beliefs, but they aren't, and were never intended to be held as, scientifically justified.

There is an interesting question of whether faith is meant to be justification or to stand in stead of justification.

The resurrection of Jesus (and Lazarus) is a miracle, an explicit violation of general scientific understanding. That's what makes it special.

Not at all. You're perhaps not familiar with Schroedinger's Jesus gedanken experiment (he moved up from cats). As long as the tomb is sealed, Jesus on the cross is neither dead nor alive. Only when the tomb is opened does the probability resolve into either Jesus dead or Jesus resurrected. The question then becomes the somewhat trivial one of whether someone has to look in the tomb or whether it suffices that someone could.

[Stone Island]

How about providing an example of a miracle that is not a claim about the natural world?
Salvation.

[Upchurch]

Salvation.
How does salvation manifest in the natural world?

[joobz]

Salvation.
That's considered a miracle?

ok.

[Hokulele]

How does salvation manifest in the natural world?


Rather vocally. :cool:

[Foster Zygote]

Salvation.

How about demonstrating that this concept of salvation exists outside of human imagination. Otherwise you might as well have said "leprechauns".

[joobz]

How about demonstrating that this concept of salvation exists outside of human imagination. Otherwise you might as well have said "leprechauns".
Do you deny leprechaun salvation?

[Foster Zygote]

Do you deny leprechaun salvation?

Salvation of leprechauns or by leprechauns?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Salvation.
As other have said the problem is that either this is something that happens in the natural world (for example, to humans who are definitely a part of the natural world), or it is something wholly supernatural and not, therefore, a miracle.

You've rejected the conventional definition of miracle several times. So, what do you mean by "miracle"? What specifically does the word mean (if not the meaning conventionally used)?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nowhere in the OP it is stated explicitly that religion makes no claims about nature.
Yes it does. It explicitly states that "the box" is the natural world. It states, as Stone Island has accurately said, that conflict or incompatibility between science and religion is impossible. This is because science makes claims about stuff inside the box, while religion makes claims about stuff outside the box (the supernatural).

I've already shown that taking it to mean that religion makes claims about stuff outside the box AND sometimes stuff inside the box makes no sense. That is the basis for the claim made on no possibility of conflict.


It is your interpretation.
No--it's actually what the quote says. I suggest you re-read it.

And yours invokes descriptive vs. prescriptive claims which is not at all what the quote in the OP says.

I say that your view is extremely implausible, because religion does obviously make such claims, for instance about morality, and it is very unlikely the author is unaware of this well known matter of fact.
It's also unlikely that Stone Island is unaware of the well known matter of fact that religion makes inside the box claims, yet he's still denying it.


The point is, there is no scientific explanation required. It is the human perception of an event being "stunning" which seeks some kind of cause or purpose. Objectively, there is nothing but coincidence. That's my firm conviction, I cannot positively prove that but I see no reason to change it. Likewise, a believer might have a different perception of the same event if it is personally reasonable within his world view. It is an intellectual assault and an act of bold arrogance to declare his/her view as inferior in any way, and that is morally wrong
Even if I bought the definition of "miracle" as just an event that is "stunning" (in contradiction to what Wiki and Merriam Webster say), I utterly reject the idea that any unfalsifiable claim is as good as saying it's just coincidence.

At any rate, it is still a claim about the natural world--about stuff inside the box.


Sorry, this is getting annoying. Please prove the assertion you're perpetrating! Pinpoint where the OP explicitly states what you claim it does explicitly state.
Right here:

Here is a column about the compatibility of science and religion. Not only is there no incompatibility between science and religion; there can't be. Science is an attempt to understand the natural world. It has nothing to say about (1) whether there is a supernatural world or (2) what the supernatural world is like, if there is such a world. Think of the natural world as a box. Science makes claims about what's inside the box. It has nothing to say about what's outside the box. Religion makes claims about what's outside the box.

As I've said several times now, interpreting this to mean that both science and religion sometimes make claims about what's inside the box (explicitly defined as "the natural world") is inconsistent with the claim that there can be no incompatibility. If they're both making claims about the natural world, there certainly is the possibility of incompatibility.

The basis of the claim that there can be no incompatibility is that they operate in two separate, disjoint, non-overlapping realms.

As I've said, I accept this is a nice goal, or a statement of the way things ought be, but it certainly is an inaccurate description of the way things are.

Now--you're only arguing that Stone Island and the rest of us are wrong about what the OP says, even though it says it very plainly. Earlier, you were responding to my examples of religion making claims about the natural world as being only claims made by "the fringe" or "fundamentalists". What was that about if you weren't defending the same position as Stone Island and the OP?

Also, earlier we had this exchange:

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler
Burgess-Johnson's statements in the OP were simply a false characterization of the actual relationship (past and present) between the natural world, religion and science. No one (especially scientists) can reasonably conclude otherwise. As a characterization of how things are or have been, it's just not accurate.
OK, that's where we disagree. I'm convinced Burgess-Johnson is consensus for the vast majority of experts in both areas.

Let me add that I distinguish, in broad terms, between epistemic and ethical sorts of claims and I understand that Burgess-Johnson talks epistemology, not ethics. It goes without saying that a constituent part of religion is a moral codex and a mechanism to implant it in a group of people. Science, on the other hand, is morally ignorant, it does not favor any moral codex whatsoever.

But then you said that what B-J is talking about is a distinction between the realms of prescriptive and descriptive claims. (Even though you seemed to deny that above.)

That's clearly not what it says in the quote in the OP. However, even if it is, that's fine. I still contend that religion also does not confine itself to prescriptive/ethical claims but makes claims that are epistemic. I've given a number of examples, but could easily list more if you wish. (In fact, I doubt if you could find any religion that hasn't made some such claims.)

[Undesired Walrus]

As you have avoided it thus far Stone, I'll ask again: Do you deny that the fine tuning argument is in direct confrontation with science?

Fourth time lucky.

[Stone Island]

As other have said the problem is that either this is something that happens in the natural world (for example, to humans who are definitely a part of the natural world), or it is something wholly supernatural and not, therefore, a miracle.

You've rejected the conventional definition of miracle several times. So, what do you mean by "miracle"? What specifically does the word mean (if not the meaning conventionally used)?

See, when I answered your question, the goalposts were over here. Now, they're over there.

Salvation is a miracle.

[Stone Island]

To defend Herzblut (though I happen to disagree).

Statements from KBJ:

1. Science makes claims about what's inside the box.
2. Science has nothing to say about what's outside the box.
3. Religion makes claims about what's outside the box.

There is no fourth statement by KBJ.

Which of the following should we accept?

4a. Religion makes claims about what is inside the box.
4b. Religion has nothing to say about what is inside the box.

Since KBJ says there can't be a conflict between religion and science, I tend to think that KBJ would lean towards 4b.

Now, apart from the actual, probable, or theoretical truth value of those claims, which is more descriptive of religion?

Of course, there's a problem there. There is the essence of religion, i.e., what is philosophically interesting about it (religious claims qua religion).

Then there is religion anthropologically understood, a system of beliefs coupled with a social system lived in history by people who didn't necessarily understand their beliefs or consider them carefully.

Think of reasonably complex social system, like the law of the State of California. There's what I believe regarding the law, what a professional (like a lawyer) believes regarding the law, and then what the law is qua law (i.e., understood as a thing itself as apart from any particular law).

[Stone Island]

I think that one possible misunderstanding may arise from what KBJ means by "the box".

1. The world we as human beings experience it isn't synonymous with the box that science operates in.

For example, we, broadly speaking, experience moral claims. They aren't irrational, we certainly can philosophize about them, but they aren't observed by our senses either.

[Foster Zygote]

Stone Island, could you give us one example of an actual miracle that it is impossible for science to explain?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think that one possible misunderstanding may arise from what KBJ means by "the box".

Nope. There's no misunderstanding. He very clearly says that "the box" is the natural world.

[Stone Island]

Nope. There's no misunderstanding. He very clearly says that "the box" is the natural world.

I think that one possible misunderstanding may arise from what KBJ means by "the box".

1. The world we as human beings experience it isn't synonymous with the box that science operates in.

For example, we, broadly speaking, experience moral claims. They aren't irrational, we certainly can philosophize about them, but they aren't observed by our senses either.

[JoeTheJuggler]

To defend Herzblut (though I happen to disagree).

Statements from KBJ:

1. Science makes claims about what's inside the box.
2. Science has nothing to say about what's outside the box.
3. Religion makes claims about what's outside the box.

There is no fourth statement by KBJ.

Which of the following should we accept?

4a. Religion makes claims about what is inside the box.
4b. Religion has nothing to say about what is inside the box.

Since KBJ says there can't be a conflict between religion and science, I tend to think that KBJ would lean towards 4b.
Yes, I agree with this.

Mostly because, as I've shown several times, the alternative reading (your statement 4a--that religion sometimes makes claims about what's inside the box--makes no sense with the overall point B-J is making--that there can be no incompatibility).


Of course, there's a problem there. There is the essence of religion, i.e., what is philosophically interesting about it (religious claims qua religion).

Then there is religion anthropologically understood, a system of beliefs coupled with a social system lived in history by people who didn't necessarily understand their beliefs or consider them carefully.

This is just a somewhat less overt version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. You're trying to create a subset of "religion", invent a definition out of thin air, and then claim that that usage of the word religion doesn't really mean religion.

The fact that the people making these claims didn't really understand their beliefs or consider them carefully does not mean that they didn't make claims in the name of religion about the natural world.

By the way, you raise a basic problem with liberal Christianity: while they trace their beliefs to divine revelation (handed down through the prophets, the evangelists and some continuous tradition of a church), they reject the beliefs of the very people that handed them their own revelation.

From Paul Tobin:

It should be noted that the liberals did not reach their position by abstruse theological reasoning: they were forced by external circumstances--the findings of science, comparative religions, enlightenment philosophies and historical criticism--to resort to such a method of reasoning for the only other available alternatives are the collapse into the complete irrationality of fundamentalism and the theological resignation of atheism.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think that one possible misunderstanding may arise from what KBJ means by "the box".

1. The world we as human beings experience it isn't synonymous with the box that science operates in.

For example, we, broadly speaking, experience moral claims. They aren't irrational, we certainly can philosophize about them, but they aren't observed by our senses either.

Nope. There's no misunderstanding. He very clearly says that "the box" is the natural world.

Wow--I just had a deja vu experience!

ETA: Moral claims are nonetheless claims about the natural world. Unless you make a moral claim, for example, about the behavior of angels in heaven. Human behavior, the usual subject of moral claims, is part of the natural world.

[Undesired Walrus]

As you have avoided it thus far Stone, I'll ask again: Do you deny that the fine tuning argument is in direct confrontation with science?

Come on Stone, I wan't to know what you think of this. Don't simply ignore me.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Come on Stone, I wan't to know what you think of this. Don't simply ignore me.

Don't feel bad, UW.

He's still never said what the point is on the whole "There is nothing uniquely harmful about religion" thing.

[Stone Island]

From, Maverick Philosopher (http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/02/does-the-atheist-deny-what-the-theist-affirms.html):It is the contention that the world, the totality of entities, is nothing more than the spacetime system. . . . The positive part of the thesis, that the spacetime system exists, is perhaps not very controversial . . . . The negative thesis, that the spacetime system is all there is, is more controversial. (A World of States of Affairs, p. 5)

If we accept Armstrong's definition — and I see no reason not to accept it — and if naturalism so defined is true, then the following do not, and presumably cannot, exist: God as classically conceived, disembodied minds/souls, unexemplified universals, and a whole range of objects variously characterizable as ideal, Platonic, or abstract, including Fregean propositions, Fregean senses in general, numbers, irreducible mathematical sets, and the like. In sum, naturalism is the thesis that reality is exhausted by the space-time system.

Now I hope it is obvious that naturalism as lately defined is not a proposition of natural science. Nor is it a presupposition of natural science. Natural science studies the spacetime system and what it contains. It does not and cannot study anything outside this system, if there is anything outside it. Nor can natural science pronounce upon the question of whether or not the whole of reality is exhausted by the spacetime system. Of course, there is nothing to stop a physicist or a chemist or a biologist from waxing philosophical and declaring his allegiance to the metaphysical doctrine of naturalism. But he makes a grotesque mistake if he thinks that the results of natural-scientific work entail the truth of naturalism. They neither entail it not entail its negation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

From, Maverick Philosopher (http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/02/does-the-atheist-deny-what-the-theist-affirms.html):

You're still opting to link from a nutty website instead of answering legitimate, straightforward questions, I see.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're still opting to call names instead of answering legitimate, straightforward arguments, I see.

I called you no names, and I have made a great many legitimate, straightforward arguments in this thread.

Now, care to address any of the questions?