Recently my friend, atheist apologist Jeff Lowder, posted on his blog an article summarizing his arguments in a debate he had with Evangelist Frank Turek. In this article I am going to critique his arguments. He offers three contentions:
(1) The best explanation is the explanation with the overall greatest balance of intrinsic probability and accuracy;(2) Naturalism is an intrinsically more probable explanation than theism; and(3) Naturalism is a more accurate explanation than theism.He offers definitions:
*“naturalism,” the physical exists and, if the mental exists, the physical explains why the mental exists.[1] [1] If naturalism is true, then there are no purely mental beings which can exist apart from a physical body and so there is no God or any person or being much like God.*“supernaturalism,” that the mental exists and, if the physical exists, the mental explains why anything physical exists.[2] If supernaturalism is true, then there is no purely physical matter which can exist without some sort of ultimate mental creator.*personal supernaturalism” is a type of supernaturalism; it adds on the claims that one or more personal mental entities exist and, if a physical world exists, it or they produced the physical world for a purpose.[3]* “theism” is a type of personal supernaturalism; it adds onthe claim that there is just one mental entity, God, who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect.[4] *“otherism” is a catch-all category. It says that both naturalism and supernaturalism are false.[5]the question before us in tonight’s debate is this. What best explains reality: theism or naturalism?
Lowder offers three contentions:
(1) The best explanation is the explanation with the overall greatest balance of intrinsic probability and accuracy;(2) Naturalism is an intrinsically more probable explanation than theism; and(3) Naturalism is a more accurate explanation than theism.
Before turning to his contentions we need to think about what is being asked. An explanation of "reality." The problem is Lowder and all the philosophers of naturalism will sicrcombscirbe reality to just the aspects of it that can be dealt with though their method. That is to say, to the physical aspects, That means they are not explaining reality at all. To draw analogy it's like saying I am going to explain pot roast.But I don't deal with where roast comes from, or what it tastes like or the texture it has in the mouth just the fact that it is and that it looks brownish, No smell. So have I explained roast? I've explained the fact that it exists and that it looks brown does that really cover it?
First Contention
: the best explanation is the explanation with the overall greatest balance of intrinsic probability and accuracy.
Lowder states"
By “intrinsic probability” of a hypothesis, I mean the probability independent of the evidence we have for or against it. The intrinsic probability of a hypothesis is determined entirely by its modesty and coherence.[6]By “accuracy” of a hypothesis, I mean the degree to which a hypothesis’s predictions correspond to reality. We measure accuracy by looking at “evidence.”By “evidence” I mean something which makes something else more probable than it would have been otherwise. Let me give you an example.[7] Imagine you have two jars of red and blue jellybeans. In the first jar, 90% of the jellybeans are blue and the rest are red. In the second jar, 90% of the jellybeans are red and the rest are blue.[2]
Is it really possible to deal with intrinsic probability and accuracy if we don't include all the variables? If most of the venerable are unknown or can't be studied.He limits reality to the mere concept of the physical aspect rather than including evidence for it. That in itself limits in seen aspects,In so doing he also limits and conceals competing explanations and aspects not given to sense data. He's giving a kind of explanation but in not dealing with moral philosophy to name one thing, he's not really dealing with reality per se.
In explaining his reasons he essentially bases his casein Bayes."Mathematicians have a formula called Bayes’ Theorem, which can be used to specify the relationship between intrinsic probability, accuracy, and the overall or final probability of a hypothesis. It follows from Bayes’ Theorem that a hypothesis is probably true, just in case it has a greater overall balance of intrinsic probability and explanatory power than do its alternatives collectively."[3]
In explaining his reasons he essentially bases his casein Bayes."Mathematicians have a formula called Bayes’ Theorem, which can be used to specify the relationship between intrinsic probability, accuracy, and the overall or final probability of a hypothesis. It follows from Bayes’ Theorem that a hypothesis is probably true, just in case it has a greater overall balance of intrinsic probability and explanatory power than do its alternatives collectively."[3]
Second Contention
second basic contention: naturalism is an intrinsically more probable explanation than theism.
Analysis:
Intrinsic probability is determined by modesty, coherence, and nothing else. By “modesty,” I mean a measure of how much the hypothesis asserts.[8] The more a hypothesis claims, the more ways there are for it to be false and so, before we start looking at evidence, the less likely it is to be true.By “coherence,” I mean a measure of how well the parts of a hypothesis fit together.[9] If the different parts count against each other, the hypothesis is less coherent and less likely to be true.Now consider naturalism and supernaturalism. They are symmetrical claims: naturalism claims that the physical explains the mental, while supernaturalism claims that the mental explains the physical. Both claims are equally modest and equally coherent. Before examining the evidence, both positions are equally likely to be true.[10]With these definitions in mind, then, I can now defend my second contention. Theism is a type of supernaturalism but could be false even if supernaturalism is true. Furthermore, theism is less modest than either supernaturalism or naturalism. Therefore, before we look at evidence, it is less likely to be true than supernaturalism or naturalism.[11] But that entails that naturalism is intrinsically more probable than theism.
Naturalism is more accurate in terms of scientifically verifiable aspects of reality but that does not prove that there are no other aspects. It's a typically unfair argument. In fact Lower has merely reduced the question to science vs religion. But if we only use scientific thinking we can never understand anything but scientific thinking, Science cannot prove that only science is valid because it can;t evaluate other ideas,
More on Wednesday
Notes
Notes
[1] I preset Lowder's actual notes in red bracketed numbers above and below after mine.
Lowder's Notes[1] I owe this definition to Paul Draper.[2] I owe this definition to Paul Draper.[3] This definition is similar to, but not identical with, one offered by Paul Draper.[4] I owe this definition to Paul Draper.
[5] I owe this definition to Paul Draper.[6] I owe this to Paul Draper.
[7] I owe this jelly bean analogy to Paul Draper. Draper’s full analogy also includes an equal number of yellow jelly beans in both jars, where yellow signifies something that is equally likely to have come from either jar and hence is not evidence that it came from either jar. I have omitted the yellow jelly beans solely in the interest of time.[8] I owe this definition to Paul Draper.[9] I owe this definition to Paul Draper.[10] Paul Draper, “God and the Burden of Proof,” Secular Outpost (July 21, 2014), http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/07/21/new-by-paul-draper-god-and-the-burden-of-proof/[11] Paul Draper, “More Pain and Pleasure: A Reply to Otte” in Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil (ed. Peter van Inwagen, Eerdmans, 2004), 41-54 at 49.[12] Let N stand for naturalism, T for theism, and F for any of these facts. Using the symbol “Pr(F | H)” to stand for the epistemic probability that F is true conditional upon H, then the claim that some fact is evidence favoring naturalism over theism should be understood as the claim that Pr(F | N) > Pr(F | T).[13] Jeffery Jay Lowder, “Potential Objections to Swinburne’s Cosmological Argument,” The Secular Outpost (March 17, 2014), http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/03/17/potential-objections-to-swinburnes-cosmological-argument/. Note that here I am using the word “matter” as a way to provide a concrete example of something “physical.”[14] See Keith M. Parsons, Science, Confirmation, and the Theistic Hypothesis (Ph.D. Dissertation, Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Queen’s University, 1986), 46; Paul Draper, “Evolution and the Problem of Evil” in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (3rd ed., ed. Louis Pojman, Wadsworth, 1997), 223-24; and idem, “God, Science, and Naturalism” Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion(ed. William Wainwright, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 272-303; and Barbara Forrest, “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection” Philo 3 (2000): 7-29.[15] Draper 2004.[16] See Paul Draper, “Evolution and the Problem of Evil” in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (3rd ed., ed. Louis Pojman, Wadsworth, 1997), 219-230; cf. Louis P. Pojman, Philosophy of Religion (Mayfield, 2001), chapter 6.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2018/12/29/opening-statement-from-my-debate-with-frank-turek/
[3] Ibid
42 comments:
The problem is Lowder and all the philosophers of naturalism will sicrcombscirbe reality to just the aspects of it that can be dealt with though their method. That is to say, to the physical aspects, That means they are not explaining reality at all. To draw analogy it's like saying I am going to explain pot roast.But I don't deal with where roast comes from, or what it tastes like or the texture it has in the mouth just the fact that it is and that it looks brownish, No smell. So have I explained roast?
- The problem with theism is that if ignores reality. Just saying "God did it" as the answer to every question is an intellectually vapid way to avoid the question. No naturalist would avoid the question of where it comes from, or deny that it has taste, texture, and smell. There are naturalistic explanations for all those things, and the fact that you don't agree with those explanations doesn't imply that the naturalist has no answer.
He limits reality to the mere concept of the physical aspect rather than including evidence for it. That in itself limits in seen aspects,In so doing he also limits and conceals competing explanations and aspects not given to sense data. He's giving a kind of explanation but in not dealing with moral philosophy to name one thing, he's not really dealing with reality per se.
- The naturalist relies on observed evidence, while the theist relies on relies on feelings and assumptions that are not based on observed evidence. For the question of how to explain the pot roast, morality has nothing to do with it. But that's not to say there is no morality in a naturalistic world, or that there is no explanation for it. Your assumption that "God did it" (in the case of morality) is yet another example of theistic assumptions not based on observable evidence.
Naturalism is more accurate in terms of scientifically verifiable aspects of reality but that does not prove that there are no other aspects. It's a typically unfair argument. In fact Lower has merely reduced the question to science vs religion. But if we only use scientific thinking we can never understand anything but scientific thinking, Science cannot prove that only science is valid because it can;t evaluate other ideas
- Science does not attempt to prove that only science is valid. This argument is a red herring. Scientific method is a well-founded epistemological approach to obtaining knowledge that is reliable, based on empiricism and verification. There is no competing epistemological approach that works as well. "God did it" is not a reliable answer, because it doesn't really explain anything in a meaningful way, and it can't be verified. It is nothing more than an empty assertion.
MetaThe problem is Lowder and all the philosophers of naturalism will sicrcombscirbe reality to just the aspects of it that can be dealt with though their method. That is to say, to the physical aspects, That means they are not explaining reality at all. To draw analogy it's like saying I am going to explain pot roast.But I don't deal with where roast comes from, or what it tastes like or the texture it has in the mouth just the fact that it is and that it looks brownish, No smell. So have I explained roast?
Skepster- The problem with theism is that if ignores reality. Just saying "God did it" as the answer to every question is an intellectually vapid way to avoid the question.
That is an ideological statement of faith, you have been brainwashed to believe that this is "all theists do" where as if you actually had any skill as an observer you would quickly see that is the slogan of someone who doesn't have the slightest idea what religion is about.. It's a statement of faith. You. have to spout it to be in the club but it's utter bullshit.
SkepsterNo naturalist would avoid the question of where it comes from, or deny that it has taste, texture, and smell. There are naturalistic explanations for all those things, and the fact that you don't agree with those explanations doesn't imply that the naturalist has no answer.
Yes those brave atheioids are so good at questioning post roast and literalising metaphors,unfortunately when it comes to religion they are total cowards. Scared to death to admit there's more to religion than just "God did it." That's why they have to cover up the complexity of theology with such a third rate observation a caricature of the believer.
They do not have the courage to actually face what faith is about
MetaHe limits reality to the mere concept of the physical aspect rather than including evidence for it. That in itself limits in seen aspects,In so doing he also limits and conceals competing explanations and aspects not given to sense data. He's giving a kind of explanation but in not dealing with moral philosophy to name one thing, he's not really dealing with reality per se.
Skepster- The naturalist relies on observed evidence, while the theist relies on and assumptions that are not based on observed evidence.
yes that's why I have 200 peer reviewed academic journal studies about them.
Skepster For the question of how to explain the pot roast, morality has nothing to do with it. But that's not to say there is no morality in a naturalistic world, or that there is no explanation for it. Your assumption that "God did it" (in the case of morality) is yet another example of theistic assumptions not based on observable evidence.
Do you just not know what metaphors are? The pot roast is a metaphor, get it? It stands for whatever whole of reality is studied. I must commend you Skepster you have validated my personal theory about people who literzialise metaphors
SkepsterNaturalism is more accurate in terms of scientifically verifiable aspects of reality but that does not prove that there are no other aspects. It's a typically unfair argument. In fact Lowder has merely reduced the question to science vs religion. But if we only use scientific thinking we can never understand anything but scientific thinking, Science cannot prove that only science is valid because it can't evaluate other ideas
Robin:--Holy red flag in front of the bull Batman.
Batman:It's ok Robin, atheoids like the skepster can't tell when they are being wound up
Robin:--Holy sucker play Batman i didn't think of that!
Skepster- Science does not attempt to prove that only science is valid. This argument is a red herring.
No it's a red flag read the dialogue
SkepsterScientific method is a well-founded epistemological approach to obtaining knowledge that is reliable, based on empiricism and verification.
You've already totally missed the point. So head up about defending your religion of science worship you totally missed the point the point.Science cant comment on other aspects of reality thus it can;t tell us anything about moral philosophy so it can't explain all of reality.
atheioids just assume the physical is all there is so that's all they look for.
SkepsterThere is no competing epistemological approach that works as well.
laughable horse Manure. Only because you make science the goal! you are just saying science is the only method that works to produce scientific knowledgeable. But that's the only kind of knowledge.
science cannot tell us about morality, the spirit, or art. you set up science as all there is you are repeating the mistake I said Lowder made.
Skepster"God did it" is not a reliable answer, because it doesn't really explain anything in a meaningful way, and it can't be verified. It is nothing more than an empty assertion.
but science did it that's ok
"Science does not attempt to prove that only science is valid." No, because that's neither what science is for nor what it is capable of. But believers in scientism don't attempt to prove it either; they simply assume it without question.
That is an ideological statement of faith, you have been brainwashed to believe that this is "all theists do" where as if you actually had any skill as an observer you would quickly see that is the slogan of someone who doesn't have the slightest idea what religion is about.. It's a statement of faith. You. have to spout it to be in the club but it's utter bullshit.
- I'm glad that we agree about something. Faith-based ideology is bad. It is an impediment to understanding reality and discovering truth. Now, we can turn our attention to moving beyond faith. We can look for an epistemological approach to gaining reliable knowledge that works better than faith. I invite you, Joe, to show me any such approach. Please explain how it works to eliminate ideology and to achieve reliable knowledge.
Yes those brave atheioids are so good at questioning post roast and literalising metaphors,unfortunately when it comes to religion they are total cowards. Scared to death to admit there's more to religion than just "God did it." That's why they have to cover up the complexity of theology with such a third rate observation a caricature of the believer. They do not have the courage to actually face what faith is about
- You presented the naturalists' explanation of pot roast as an 'analogy' in the broader context of explaining all kinds of things. I think 'example' would be a more apt term. But the particular example is irrelevant. Your point was that naturalists leave out important aspects of the explanation - like where it comes from, and hoe to explain the qualitative aspects of it, like taste, texture, and smell. My response was not specific to any example, but it is a repudiation of your way of characterizing the naturalist explanation. We do NOT leave those things out. It makes no difference what the example is. YOU do not have the courage to take an honest look at what the naturalist is saying.
yes that's why I have 200 peer reviewed academic journal studies about them.
- I specifically addressed that in your article on the Gardener Parable, in my comment at 1/13/2019 03:03:00 PM, to which you never replied. Presumably, you have no answer. The point is that you don't distinguish between evidence and argument.
Do you just not know what metaphors are? The pot roast is a metaphor, get it? It stands for whatever whole of reality is studied. I must commend you Skepster you have validated my personal theory about people who literzialise metaphors
- As I already explained, I do not take it literally that tis discussion is about pot roast. The problem is that YOU can't generalize my response to the broader context.
You've already totally missed the point. So head up about defending your religion of science worship you totally missed the point the point.Science cant comment on other aspects of reality thus it can;t tell us anything about moral philosophy so it can't explain all of reality.
- What aspects of reality are off limits to science? You talked about things like where things come from, or qualia like taste and texture. But science is quite capable of dealing with those things. What else is there? God. It turns out that science is quite capable of dealing with that, too. You just can't stand the direction that scientific understanding leads us.
science cannot tell us about morality, the spirit, or art. you set up science as all there is you are repeating the mistake I said Lowder made.
- What you claims about "science as all there is" is wrong. I explained why in an earlier piece, The Only Valid Form of Knowledge. And you just keep repeating your ignorant claims.
But believers in scientism don't attempt to prove it either; they simply assume it without question.
- Science is not about the content of the belief. Science does not limit itself, nor does it make a priori assumptions about what is real, but it attempts to provide justification for what we think we know. Show me a religionist who does not make the a priori assumption of God, and I'll show you a liar.
Blogger Kristen said...
"Science does not attempt to prove that only science is valid." No, because that's neither what science is for nor what it is capable of. But believers in scientism don't attempt to prove it either; they simply assume it without question.
8:42 AM Delete
Well said Kristen
ut believers in scientism don't attempt to prove it either; they simply assume it without question.
- Science is not about the content of the belief. Science does not limit itself, nor does it make a priori assumptions about what is real, but it attempts to provide justification for what we think we know. Show me a religionist who does not make the a priori assumption of God, and I'll show you a liar.
I am not arguing with science bozo I;'m,arguing against your cult of science worship.
Your arguments are irrelevant because they don;'t deal with Lowder's arguments
I don't think you know what a priori means or what an a priori assumption is,
why should we not assume God's existence a apriori means?
MetaYou've already totally missed the point. So head up about defending your religion of science worship you totally missed the point the point.Science cant comment on other aspects of reality thus it can;t tell us anything about moral philosophy so it can't explain all of reality.
skep- What aspects of reality are off limits to science? You talked about things like where things come from, or qualia like taste and texture. But science is quite capable of dealing with those things.
I knew would not understand an analogy. You think it's literally describing the textual of roast. wow. Say have you ever thought about investing in land? I've got some prime real estate in Arizona you might like.
moral philosophy.
aesthetics
existentialism
phenomenology.
epistemology. to name a few
What else is there? God. It turns out that science is quite capable of dealing with that, too. You just can't stand the direction that scientific understanding leads us.
science has no way of provoking nor disproving God.Science is limited to sense data,and God is not given in sense data, so no scientific argument against God.
I am not arguing with science bozo I;'m,arguing against your cult of science worship. Your arguments are irrelevant because they don;'t deal with Lowder's arguments
- It's patently obvious that you hate science because it doesn't support your religious beliefs. You deflect your hatred to those who don't share your own approach to epistemology. And I am not arguing against Lowder. I am arguing against the claims YOU make.
I don't think you know what a priori means or what an a priori assumption is
- It is what you believe before any observation or argument is made. God is your starting point and your ending point.
I knew would not understand an analogy. You think it's literally describing the textual of roast. wow. Say have you ever thought about investing in land? I've got some prime real estate in Arizona you might like.
moral philosophy.
aesthetics
existentialism
phenomenology.
epistemology. to name a few
- You're mixing apples and oranges. Ethics and aesthetics are branches of philosophy. They are not out of bounds to a naturalist. Naturalists certainly do incorporate them into their views. Existentialism and phenomenology are particular philosophical views that you can either accept or reject. But the important issue here is that you are lying about the supposed naturalist's epistemological view that "science is the only valid form of knowledge". Read the article I linked to.
science has no way of provoking nor disproving God.Science is limited to sense data,and God is not given in sense data, so no scientific argument against God.
- Religion has no way of proving or disproving God, either. Bur science has something that religion doesn't. The best available method for verifying our claims about reality.
Meta I am not arguing with science bozo I;'m,arguing against your cult of science worship. Your arguments are irrelevant because they don;'t deal with Lowder's arguments
Skepster- It's patently obvious that you hate science because it doesn't support your religious beliefs. You deflect your hatred to those who don't share your own approach to epistemology. And I am not arguing against Lowder. I am arguing against the claims YOU make.
You are not defending Lowder either,that;s my point. you are quite wrong to say I hate science,what you really mean Is i don;t worship it as you do
Meta I don't think you know what a priori means or what an a priori assumption is
Skepster - It is what you believe before any observation or argument is made. God is your starting point and your ending point.
No that is not what a priori means,I knew you didn't know. There is nothing wrong with that nothing all your science can prove that there is a problem with startling fro God. "a priori knowledge is knowledge that comes from the power of reasoning based on self-evident truths." the phrase you used was a priori assumption I was taking to mean an argument like the ontological argument,
Meta I knew would not understand an analogy. You think it's literally describing the texture of roast. wow. Say have you ever thought about investing in land? I've got some prime real estate in Arizona you might like.
moral philosophy.
aesthetics
existentialism
phenomenology.
epistemology. to name a few
Skepster- You're mixing apples and oranges. Ethics and aesthetics are branches of philosophy. They are not out of bounds to a naturalist. Naturalists certainly do incorporate them into their views.
what the hell do you think you are saying? have you forgotten that i am not contrasted to talk only aboiut science as are you? These are reasons to believe in God. they are subjectmatters in which one finds reasons to believe, it doesn't matter if you mix them.
This is extremely unethical game playing. you are trying to leverage a thin end of the wedge into nonscientific territory for science by using naturalism as a bridge. That wont work. your argument was of science not naturalism Naturalism is a philosophy not science, it wont answers those questions either,
Existentialism and phenomenology are particular philosophical views that you can either accept or reject. But the important issue here is that you are lying about the supposed naturalist's epistemological view that "science is the only valid form of knowledge". Read the article I linked to.
you do not value anything other than science you know you do not, you never defend anything else
Meta science has no way of proving nor disproving God.Science is limited to sense data,and God is not given in sense data, so no scientific argument against God.
Skepster- Religion has no way of proving or disproving God, either.
I've said that myself a million times, its not important, I can warrant belief that;s all we need.
Skepster science has something that religion doesn't. The best available method for verifying our claims about reality.
Meta only because you jettison from your epistemic system anything not given in scientific data, It;n so hard to prove science is scientific, That is not all of reality,science cannot disprove God.
You are not defending Lowder either,that;s my point.
- I am commenting on your article. When you say something that makes no sense, it doesn't matter who you are addressing. It's still something that makes no sense.
you are quite wrong to say I hate science,what you really mean Is i don;t worship it as you do
- What I mean is that you hate science, because it doesn't lead to God belief. That's why you actively reject science in favor of Hinman's religious a priori. You don't need 200 studies. You have already claimed to KNOW that God exists without ever looking at any piece of evidence, which is as unscientific as it can get. And you castigate anyone who wants to look at the evidence without first assuming God.
No that is not what a priori means,I knew you didn't know.
- I know exactly what it means. And I get this straight from what YOU wrote in your own blog.
what the hell do you think you are saying? have you forgotten that i am not contrasted to talk only aboiut science as are you? These are reasons to believe in God. they are subjectmatters in which one finds reasons to believe, it doesn't matter if you mix them.
- You need to learn something about philosophy outside the religious bubble. Ethics and aesthetics both exist in philosophy without any necessary implication of God. Of course, if you see everything through God-colored goggles, you might think that they are reasons to believe. But most philosophers these days are not religious. Get over it, and learn something outside your religious bubble.
your argument was of science not naturalism Naturalism is a philosophy not science, it wont answers those questions either
- I specifically referred to naturalism in my arguments (go back and read what I said), and every time I do, you scream about science. You don't listen to a word I say, because you are so filled with hate.
you do not value anything other than science you know you do not, you never defend anything else
- You are a liar. One thing I defend is truth.
I've said that myself a million times, its not important, I can warrant belief that;s all we need.
- If it's not important, then why do you keep harping about how science can't prove or disprove God? Is it important that science doesn't prove it, but unimportant that religion doesn't prove it? What a hypocrite. As for your "warrant", that's hypocritical, too. You already claim a priori knowledge of God. What more warrant do you need? Just hedging your bets?
meYou are not defending Lowder either,that;s my point.
other guy- I am commenting on your article. When you say something that makes no sense, it doesn't matter who you are addressing. It's still something that makes no sense.
Sense making in this context is oriented about Lowder's arguments.That's what it has to be judged by. you are not doing that,
meyou are quite wrong to say I hate science,what you really mean Is i don;t worship it as you do
other guy- What I mean is that you hate science, because it doesn't lead to God belief.
rhetorical BS you don't bother to back up.Explaining what the words mean is not proof,
other guy That's why you actively reject science in favor of Hinman's religious a priori.
me
(1)You reject science when it doesn't back your ideology you are just making a childish tantrum,
(2) Hinman's what? where did I ever say such a thing?
other guyYou don't need 200 studies. You have already claimed to KNOW that God exists without ever looking at any piece of evidence, which is as unscientific as it can get. And you castigate anyone who wants to look at the evidence without first assuming God.
But I do have 200 studies and you reject them because you are not really in favor of science, you are really Against God.
meNo that is not what a priori means,I knew you didn't know.
other guy- I know exactly what it means. And I get this straight from what YOU wrote in your own blog.
In this context it means an argumet like the Ontological argument,so you are using it wrong. You are taking it out of context
mewhat the hell do you think you are saying? have you forgotten that i am not contrasted to talk only aboiut science as are you? These are reasons to believe in God. they are subjectmatters in which one finds reasons to believe, it doesn't matter if you mix them.
other guy- You need to learn something about philosophy outside the religious bubble.
I was an atheist until I was 23 I went through college as an atheist,I knew more than you do about philosophy when I was a child you know nothing about it, your understanding is very undergraduate.My PhD work was secular program in history of ideas,
other guy
Ethics and aesthetics both exist in philosophy without any necessary implication of God.
that equivocal,the basis of arguments like the moral argument commentates the adequacy of Ecuador thinking on morality,
other guy
Of course, if you see everything through God-colored goggles, you might think that they are reasons to believe. But most philosophers these days are not religious. Get over it, and learn something outside your religious bubble.
that is not an argument it;s a propagandist slogan
meyour argument was of science not naturalism Naturalism is a philosophy not science, it wont answers those questions either
other guy- I specifically referred to naturalism in my arguments (go back and read what I said), and every time I do, you scream about science. You don't listen to a word I say, because you are so filled with hate.
you have created a straw man agent by defending science when I;m not attacking science, you don;t defend the arguments against naturalism, you put everything in terms of science vs religion,
meyou do not value anything other than science you know you do not, you never defend anything else
other guy- You are a liar. One thing I defend is truth.
show me your defense of moral philosophy
meI've said that myself a million times, its not important, I can warrant belief that;s all we need.["it" meaning proof of God]
other guy- If it's not important, then why do you keep harping about how science can't prove or disprove God?
because you think it disproves God. I said proving God is not important i didn;t say it;s not important to deny the disproof of God
other guyIs it important that science doesn't prove it, but unimportant that religion doesn't prove it? What a hypocrite.
Stupid statement, nothing hypocritical abouit it,you are merely offended that I don;t worship your god. but it's unimportant to prove the existence of God but important to disprove disproofs,
As for your "warrant", that's hypocritical, too. You already claim a priori knowledge of God. What more warrant do you need? Just hedging your bets?
9:40 AM
that's the diference in my reasons for myself vs showing others that they shoukld believe,
Sense making in this context is oriented about Lowder's arguments.That's what it has to be judged by. you are not doing that
- OK, Joe. We'll do this your way. Go back to my first comment in this thread. There are three item that I remarked about. In each of them, I quoted something you said. For each of those, put this in front of the quote: "In response to Lowder, you said:". There. are you happy? Now it all relates to Lowder's arguments. (Actually, that's what it was about all along.)
rhetorical BS you don't bother to back up.Explaining what the words mean is not proof
- I merely remarked that you hate science. It's not a definition or a proof. It's obvious because you are always attacking science. The reason I mentioned it in the first place is because you attacked Lowder, saying " Lower has merely reduced the question to science vs religion." Actually, he had done no such thing. But this is what YOU always do.
But I do have 200 studies and you reject them because you are not really in favor of science, you are really Against God.
- You contradict yourself. You said this: "Science is limited to sense data,and God is not given in sense data, so no scientific argument against God.?" If God isn't given in sense data, then science can't be used to provide your "warrant for belief". You can't have it both ways. Your position is both hypocritical and self-refuting.
In this context it means an argumet like the Ontological argument,so you are using it wrong. You are taking it out of context
- I don't think YOU know what a priori means. Here's a definition:
adj. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
adj. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
adj. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
I was an atheist until I was 23 I went through college as an atheist,I knew more than you do about philosophy when I was a child you know nothing about it, your understanding is very undergraduate.My PhD work was secular program in history of ideas
- Whether you called yourself an atheist or not, you always believed in unscientific woo. Your bible college education taught you nothing but more woo. And you DON'T have a PhD. My education exceeds yours.
that equivocal,the basis of arguments like the moral argument commentates the adequacy of Ecuador thinking on morality
- That's ignorant. You don't understand the difference between an argument and a branch of philosophy.
you have created a straw man agent by defending science when I;m not attacking science, you don;t defend the arguments against naturalism, you put everything in terms of science vs religion
- That's what you said about Lowder. I respond to what you claim.
show me your defense of moral philosophy
- Don't change the topic. I defend truth (for one thing), and you are a liar for claiming that I defend nothing bur science.
I said proving God is not important i didn;t say it;s not important to deny the disproof of God
- If it's not important, then why did you say it, hypocrite?
that's the diference in my reasons for myself vs showing others that they shoukld believe
- "God isn't given in the sense data." Your 200 studies are worthless, hypocrite.
JLHSense making in this context is oriented about Lowder's arguments.That's what it has to be judged by. you are not doing that
Skp- OK, Joe. We'll do this your way. Go back to my first comment in this thread. There are three item that I remarked about. In each of them, I quoted something you said. For each of those, put this in front of the quote: "In response to Lowder, you said:". There. are you happy? Now it all relates to Lowder's arguments. (Actually, that's what it was about all along.)
I answered those you quit extending them you lost those
JLHrhetorical BS you don't bother to back up.Explaining what the words mean is not proof
Skp- I merely remarked that you hate science. It's not a definition or a proof. It's obvious because you are always attacking science. The reason I mentioned it in the first place is because you attacked Lowder, saying " Lower has merely reduced the question to science vs religion." Actually, he had done no such thing. But this is what YOU always do.
Yes he obviously did, read the dialogue piece of Wednesday. His arguments are all about science offers scientific knowledge and religion does not. which means he;s reduced it all to that
JPHBut I do have 200 studies and you reject them because you are not really in favor of science, you are really Against God.
Skp- You contradict yourself. You said this: "Science is limited to sense data,and God is not given in sense data, so no scientific argument against God.?" If God isn't given in sense data, then science can't be used to provide your "warrant for belief". You can't have it both ways. Your position is both hypocritical and self-refuting.
That's false. It's not proof it's lower standard.Example Fine tuning is a reason to believe in God but it doesn't prove God exists.
JLHIn this context it means an argumet like the Ontological argument,so you are using it wrong. You are taking it out of context
Skp- I don't think YOU know what a priori means. Here's a definition:
adj. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
That is not it. where did you get that? has nothing to do with it. I quoted the definition. That is credulous:
Inter Encyclopedia of Philosophy
" A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed,...The distinction between the two terms is epistemological and immediately relates to the justification for why a given item of knowledge is held. For instance, a person who knows (a priori) that "All bachelors are unmarried" need not have experienced the unmarried status of all—or indeed any—bachelors to justify this proposition. "
__evidence______________
The term a priori is used in philosophy to indicate deductive reasoning. The term is Latin, meaning “from what comes before”, refering to that which comes before experience.
Something that is known a priori can safely be considered to be a true statement, assuming that the logic (or deductive reasoning) used to arrive at that conclusion is conducted using valid arguments.
Philosophy INdex
adj. "Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
adj. Knowable without appeal to particular experience."
Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy
"A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience."
__________________________
JLHI was an atheist until I was 23 I went through college as an atheist,I knew more than you do about philosophy when I was a child you know nothing about it, your understanding is very undergraduate.My PhD work was secular program in history of ideas
Skp- Whether you called yourself an atheist or not, you always believed in unscientific woo. Your bible college education taught you nothing but more woo. And you DON'T have a PhD. My education exceeds yours.
That is a doctrinal statement in your science worship religion,Im not interested in your private doctrine
JLHthat is equivocal,the basis of arguments like the moral argument commentates the adequacy of Ecuador thinking on morality
Skp- That's ignorant. You don't understand the difference between an argument and a branch of philosophy.
you are such an expert on Philosophy you made that stupid statement above about a priori contradicted the definition in real encyclopedia of philosophy, all your argues are circular that's what a great expert you are,
JPHyou have created a straw man argumemt by defending science when I'm not attacking science, you don't defend the arguments against naturalism, you put everything in terms of science vs religion
- That's what you said about Lowder. I respond to what you claim.
You are both doming it look at his arguments, all he talks about is science, so he's saying science is more likely to beguiled naturalistic relists but that is only true because that's what science is about. But that;s all he deals with
JLHshow me your defense of moral philosophy
- Don't change the topic. I defend truth (for one thing), and you are a liar for claiming that I defend nothing bur science.
Change the topic? genius I spoke of moral philosophy above its the alternative to just doing science. My criticism is hat the reduces reality to just science vs religion. Moral philosophy is one of the alternatives that one would deal with if one were not reducing everything see? try to follow.
J:HI said proving God is not important i didn;t say it;s not important to deny the disproof of God
Skp- If it's not important, then why did you say it, hypocrite?
I didn't. That's what i said is not important. I said proving God is not important disproving disproofs of God is important,there;s a huged difference,
JKHthat's the diference in my reasons for myself vs showing others that they shoukld believe
- "God isn't given in the sense data." Your 200 studies are worthless, hypocrite.
you ares so fucking stupid. you just cannot follow a line of logic,
The studies are not proof they are warrant,I said this all along
I answered those you quit extending them you lost those
- Someone should explain to you how argumentation works. The mere fact that you have replied to my comments does not imply that I have "lost". If you say something that is irrelevant, or incorrect, or illogical, then you have not answered in a satisfactory way, and you have not "won", nor have I "lost" the issue.
Yes he obviously did, read the dialogue piece of Wednesday. His arguments are all about science offers scientific knowledge and religion does not. which means he;s reduced it all to that
- He is talking about an epistemological approach to gaining reliable knowledge about our world. If he says that A is better than B for that purpose, then he is not reducing all things to A vs. B. Open your eyes, Joe. His argument is much more reasonable than your answer.
That's false. It's not proof it's lower standard.Example Fine tuning is a reason to believe in God but it doesn't prove God exists.
- Get this through your thick skull: Nobody is talking about "proof" except you. Proof is not a higher "standard" for knowledge about the things in our world. Proof (about God or any other theory you can name) doesn't exist in our world. In philosophy, we speak of epistemic justification, which amounts essentially to evidence. And as I have said already, "fine tuning" is NOT evidence. It is not observed. It is an argument made by theists to explain the things we do observe. There are other arguments.
That is not it. where did you get that? has nothing to do with it. I quoted the definition. That is credulous
- I quoted from one source, and you quoted from others. There is no contradiction between them. The key point is that it refers to something that is assumed BEFORE any experience (which means the experience of the world, or evidence of the senses). In philosophy, an a priori argument is said to be one whose premises (at least one) fits that definition.
That is a doctrinal statement in your science worship religion,Im not interested in your private doctrine
- And I'm sick and tired of hearing your baseless claims of academic superiority. Your reasoning is invalid. Your arguments suck.
you are such an expert on Philosophy you made that stupid statement above about a priori contradicted the definition in real encyclopedia of philosophy, all your argues are circular that's what a great expert you are
- I understand what a priori is. YOU obviously don't.
You are both doming it look at his arguments, all he talks about is science, so he's saying science is more likely to beguiled naturalistic relists but that is only true because that's what science is about. But that;s all he deals with
- That's not all he deals with, and it's not all I deal with. But you have a way of turning discussions into that, because that's all you see.
Change the topic? genius I spoke of moral philosophy above its the alternative to just doing science. My criticism is hat the reduces reality to just science vs religion. Moral philosophy is one of the alternatives that one would deal with if one were not reducing everything see? try to follow.
- I wish YOU would follow the argument. You claim I defend nothing but science. I claim that you are a liar. I don't have to provide a defense of one particular thing that you name. All I have to do is defend something other than science to support my claim that you are a liar. Follow the argument, Joe.
I didn't. That's what i said is not important. I said proving God is not important disproving disproofs of God is important,there;s a huged difference
- When you first said "its not important", we were talking about whether God is proves or disproved by science(or religion). We were not talking about "disproving disproofs". When I pointed out your inconsistency (because you never stop harping about proving God), you changed it to disproving disproofs. That's dishonest. Or, if we want to give you the benefit of the doubt, we might say that there must be some alternate discussion going on in your head that never actually appears on these pages. Which would make some sense in light of the fact that you keep insisting that I demand scientific proof of God, when in fact I speak about evidence-based justification for belief. What you hear is not what I say.
The studies are not proof they are warrant,I said this all along
- Get this through your thick skull: Nobody is talking about "proof" except you. Now let me explain something to you. In the arena of science (since we are talking about scientific studies), warrant for belief is nothing but empirical evidence. When you say you have scientifically based warrant for belief, you are making the claim that there is empirical evidence for God. There is evidence for something, but your interpretation of it is NOT scientific, as I have pointed out many times. If your claim was true, then the whole scientific community would be buzzing with the news. But your claims have received no such attention. There's a reason for that.
Skep, You say that Joe "hates science." I've known Joe quite a while and I've never known him to "hate science." He hates the mystique that sometimes surrounds science, the unquestioned assumption that science can answer all legitimate questions and if it can't answer a particular question, then that question by definition isn't legitimate. I don't know you well enough to know whether you fall into this category, but many atheists do. Science is a set of practices, not an ideology.
7th Stooge said...
Skep, You say that Joe "hates science." I've known Joe quite a while and I've never known him to "hate science." He hates the mystique that sometimes surrounds science, the unquestioned assumption that science can answer all legitimate questions and if it can't answer a particular question, then that question by definition isn't legitimate. I don't know you well enough to know whether you fall into this category, but many atheists do. Science is a set of practices, not an ideology.
thanks Seven I appreciate that
Stooge,
Joe often says that I hate God. That's absurd, because it is impossible to hate something if you believe it doesn't exist. So is Joe serious about what he says (under the assumption that deep down inside, I really do believe in God), or is he engaging in a bit of hyperbole? I'll let him answer that. For my own part, I can say that Joe knows that science exists. I can also say that Joe sees science (and its epistemological foundations) as a threat, because it doesn't lead to belief in God. So there is a real reason for him to hate it. But that, in itself, doesn't imply hatred. There would have to be more evidence - and there is.
Hatred is manifested in some kind of effort to harm or diminish the object of hatred. Does Joe do that? I think so. In a number of ways. One very obvious way is to belittle the practitioners of science. Joe certainly does that. The effect is to associate science with what Joe supposes to be bad thinking (because it doesn't include God). This is the "mystique" that you refer to. Joe calls it "scientism". But it is a fabrication. Real scientists, and other defenders of science, do not adhere to the overly narrow views about knowledge that you and Joe claim. Go to my blog and search for the word 'scientism', and you can see what I have to say about it. These claims about scientism are, for the most part, patently false. And don't pretend that you wouldn't be offended if someone tried to distort your own philosophical views in a similar manner. So who is Joe attacking with these claims? Basically, most any non-theist who practices or defends real science. Why? Because they don't support or defend his theistic beliefs.
But hatred of science goes beyond attack on those who have a scientific perspective. Many religionists seek to diminish science itself. The goal is to transform science into something that loses its power to acquire reliable knowledge about our world. It is an effort to turn science into something that no longer follows the established dictates of scientific practice. We see this with so-called "creation science", for example, where scientific method (including the abductive process of reasoning to the best hypothesis) is abandoned in favor of a single-minded search for evidence to support a pre-determined answer. This is not science - it is pseudo-science. And not only is the practice of science diminished, but there is a concerted effort to plant the idea in the minds of the public that this is the way science should be practiced.
You may object that Joe doesn't subscribe to creation science. But he certainly adheres to his own version of pseudo-science. Every time I hear him exclaim "I have 200 studies", I cringe because I know that those studies don't support the conclusions he has drawn. Just like the creation scientists, Joe has a pre-determined answer, and he has gone out in search of any evidence he can find to support that answer. The biggest problem with that is that he ignored all other evidence. He completely disregards anything that would lead to a different conclusion. And that ain't science. And that's precisely why he has failed to rock the world with his supposed scientific "warrant for belief".
Now I ask you: If Joe actually appreciates science, would he want to diminish its practice in this manner? I think not.
Joe often says that I hate God. That's absurd, because it is impossible to hate something if you believe it doesn't exist. So is Joe serious about what he says (under the assumption that deep down inside, I really do believe in God), or is he engaging in a bit of hyperbole? I'll let him answer that. For my own part, I can say that Joe knows that science exists. I can also say that Joe sees science (and its epistemological foundations) as a threat, because it doesn't lead to belief in God. So there is a real reason for him to hate it. But that, in itself, doesn't imply hatred. There would have to be more evidence - and there is.
I think you know at some level God is real even if you wont admit to yourself that you do. You expect science to save you from that so you are looking to scinece as salvation,I am not,
Hatred is manifested in some kind of effort to harm or diminish the object of hatred. Does Joe do that? I think so. In a number of ways. One very obvious way is to belittle the practitioners of science. Joe certainly does that. The effect is to associate science with what Joe supposes to be bad thinking (because it doesn't include God).
More scientists believe in God than don't. Its because I don't worship science I don't put it in the place God belongs and you do that you see my realistic critique of science as blasphemy and hatred. One does not critique one;s God.,
This is the "mystique" that you refer to. Joe calls it "scientism". But it is a fabrication. Real scientists, and other defenders of science, do not adhere to the overly narrow views about knowledge that you and Joe claim.
No they don't. But atheists do. Stephen j Gould is such a respected scientist Dawkins is a apologist for atheism. Stenger is a scientism mouthpiece
Go to my blog and search for the word 'scientism', and you can see what I have to say about it. These claims about scientism are, for the most part, patently false. And don't pretend that you wouldn't be offended if someone tried to distort your own philosophical views in a similar manner. So who is Joe attacking with these claims? Basically, most any non-theist who practices or defends real science. Why? Because they don't support or defend his theistic beliefs.
I know i have failed to accomplish anything i dreamed of for my life. One needs to be realistic about one's accomplishment,
But hatred of science goes beyond attack on those who have a scientific perspective. Many religionists seek to diminish science itself. The goal is to transform science into something that loses its power to acquire reliable knowledge about our world. It is an effort to turn science into something that no longer follows the established dictates of scientific practice. We see this with so-called "creation science", for example, where scientific method (including the abductive process of reasoning to the best hypothesis) is abandoned in favor of a single-minded search for evidence to support a pre-determined answer. This is not science - it is pseudo-science. And not only is the practice of science diminished, but there is a concerted effort to plant the idea in the minds of the public that this is the way science should be practiced.
trying to link me to creationism or the trump thing is stupid, really stupid. shows you are totally imperceptive. You have no idea with whom you are dealing. you little self aggrandized twit. you are trying to build you up.You make me into the bad cretinous persecutor of science that makes you the knight in shining armor saving science
You may object that Joe doesn't subscribe to creation science. But he certainly adheres to his own version of pseudo-science. Every time I hear him exclaim "I have 200 studies", I cringe because I know that those studies don't support the conclusions he has drawn.
Every time you utter that stupidity you just prove over and over again that you know absolutely nothing about debate or logic, dumbass! go join a high school debate team and learn how argument works stupid.
No college debate judge anywhere ever voted against a team because they didn't have a study saying "the team from this school is right." No one ever voted Agassi my partner and i because did not have a study that Siam"Joe and Mike are right"
here is where you turn yourself into a liar,you don't know how I employ the studies but you are such a little self absorbed know all you assume you know, you do.
Just like the creation scientists, Joe has a pre-determined answer, and he has gone out in search of any evidence he can find to support that answer. The biggest problem with that is that he ignored all other evidence. He completely disregards anything that would lead to a different conclusion. And that ain't science. And that's precisely why he has failed to rock the world with his supposed scientific "warrant for belief".
I have a heck of an answer but my christian faith does not permit me to use it
Now I ask you: If Joe actually appreciates science, would he want to diminish its practice in this manner? I think not.
so self agrandized all because you can/t being proved wrong,
you can't stand being proved wrong,
I remind the reader again, your little know it all atheist blatherskeit has never read my book, But he will spend days pontificating on how wrong it is even though he knows nothing about what it say. Nor has he ever read any of the studies, he asserts i don;t use them correctly because no Christian can ever be right I have to be wrong because he know all about science.
He is trusting science for his salivation that means he knows all about it.
I think you know at some level God is real even if you wont admit to yourself that you do. You expect science to save you from that so you are looking to scinece as salvation,I am not
- Ths is interesting. Joe refuses to admit that I can be an actual atheist. He is so immersed in his God-belief that he finds it impossible to imagine a world without God. And yet, he himself claims that he was an atheist. When I say he always had some element of belief (because that's what all the evidence indicates), he adamantly denies it. It's pretty obvious what's going on here. Joe's mind is so closed to naturalism that he can't even imagine it, and he projects that onto everyone else. He accuses atheists of hating God while harboring a secret belief, just like he had when he called himself an atheist.
Its because I don't worship science I don't put it in the place God belongs and you do that you see my realistic critique of science as blasphemy and hatred.
- Never was there a mind so closed. You don't have to be a naturalist, but you could at least respect the notion that it is a legitimate philosophy.
No they don't. But atheists do. Stephen j Gould is such a respected scientist Dawkins is a apologist for atheism. Stenger is a scientism mouthpiece
- I commented that a theist would be offended if I tried to distort HIS philosophy like Joe has done. It's water off a duck's back. Joe presumes to speak for all of us and tell us what we bwlieve. What a piece of work.
I know i have failed to accomplish anything i dreamed of for my life. One needs to be realistic about one's accomplishment
- You certainly have failed to impress anyone but your cultists.
trying to link me to creationism or the trump thing is stupid, really stupid. shows you are totally imperceptive. You have no idea with whom you are dealing. you little self aggrandized twit.
- If you bothered to read what I said, you would understand that I gave that as an example of how religionists demean and degrade science.
Every time you utter that stupidity you just prove over and over again that you know absolutely nothing about debate or logic, dumbass! go join a high school debate team and learn how argument works stupid.
- You do NOT follow scientific method in your investigations. You are a purveyor of pseudo-science.
here is where you turn yourself into a liar,you don't know how I employ the studies but you are such a little self absorbed know all you assume you know, you do.
- You have put practically the whole book on the pages of your own blog. You have presented your arguments and made your case. Yes, I do know what you are doing with those studies. And it isn't science.
I have a heck of an answer but my christian faith does not permit me to use it
- Go ahead, Joe. Let God's love flow from your most humble soul.
He is trusting science for his salivation that means he knows all about it.
- Without God, there is no need for salvation. I'm quite happy to be responsible for my own life. (This is what Sartre called being-for-itself - not that your little theism-addled mind would understand.)
Skep,
You haven't offered any actual evidence that Joe attacks "basically any non-theist who practices science." This is simply not my experience of Joe, whom I have known personally for over 30 years. He attacks people, whether practicing scientists or non, who use science for ideological purposes, such as scientism or scientific expansionism.
And even if he is disregarding some countervailing evidence in his "200 studies," this fact alone wouldn't mean that his intention is to diminish science. People do this all the time in science and every other field; it doesn't mean they intend to diminish and therefore hate their field.
Joe I think you know at some level God is real even if you wont admit to yourself that you do. You expect science to save you from that so you are looking to science as salvation,I am not
Skep- Ths is interesting. Joe refuses to admit that I can be an actual atheist. He is so immersed in his God-belief that he finds it impossible to imagine a world without God.
I know you can be an atheist I don't thin any atheist is totally free knowledge that God is real
And yet, he himself claims that he was an atheist. When I say he always had some element of belief (because that's what all the evidence indicates), he adamantly denies it.
Not to my conscious mind I did not, i admitted already that you may not to your conscious mind,I;m talking about a subliminal.
It's pretty obvious what's going on here. Joe's mind is so closed to naturalism that he can't even imagine it, and he projects that onto everyone else. He accuses atheists of hating God while harboring a secret belief, just like he had when he called himself an atheist.
that is so stupid that comes from brainwashing that says Christians are stupider than atheists, I was a naturalists I sued the same things you are saying to christians who told me I knew God was real and I said they they were stupid.All said before a long time ago but the roles were reversed,
JoeIts because I don't worship science I don't put it in the place God belongs and you do that you see my realistic critique of science as blasphemy and hatred.
- Never was there a mind so closed. You don't have to be a naturalist, but you could at least respect the notion that it is a legitimate philosophy.
Skepie you nothing about philosophy everything I've ever seen you say about is stupid and wronghheaded,I;ve seen Ryan Rayan M take you to task on a lot of things,
JoeNo they don't. But atheists do. Stephen j Gould is such a respected scientist Dawkins is a apologist for atheism. Stenger is a scientism mouthpiece
Skep- I commented that a theist would be offended if I tried to distort HIS philosophy like Joe has done. It's water off a duck's back. Joe presumes to speak for all of us and tell us what we believe. What a piece of work.
Look he even stole my phrase about water off a duck's back. It's obvious when somene is into scientism
JoI know i have failed to accomplish anything i dreamed of for my life. One needs to be realistic about one's accomplishment
Skep- You certainly have failed to impress anyone but your cultists.
that's why you didn't go to graduate school? you impress people so inm secular philosophy they said you don't even need a phD.
Joetrying to link me to creationism or the trump thing is stupid, really stupid. shows you are totally imperceptive. You have no idea with whom you are dealing. you little self aggrandized twit.
SAT- If you bothered to read what I said, you would understand that I gave that as an example of how religionists demean and degrade science.
Bull shit, you tried to label me with that you know it,
JoeEvery time you utter that stupidity you just prove over and over again that you know absolutely nothing about debate or logic, dumbass! go join a high school debate team and learn how argument works stupid.
SAT- You do NOT follow scientific method in your investigations. You are a purveyor of pseudo-science.
I know more than you will ever know abouit the scientific method I went to graduate school and studie in Ph.D .level classes you did not take. Using studies to make arguments is not a matter of scientific method twit. it's a matter of argumentation. it not the job of a scientist to argue for position. The methods were used ind the studies, they were already published they have to do with use of them.
Joehere is where you turn yourself into a liar,you don't know how I employ the studies but you are such a little self absorbed know all you assume you know, you do.
- You have put practically the whole book on the pages of your own blog. You have presented your arguments and made your case. Yes, I do know what you are doing with those studies. And it isn't science.
That is utter bull shit you ignorant hack you have not read the book so you have no basis in understanding to say that but it;s nowhere near, not even one chapter,most of what i say is repeating a few things
You haven't offered any actual evidence that Joe attacks "basically any non-theist who practices science."
- I did suggest reading what I had to say about "scientism". Joe attacks with vitriol those who are outspoken in defense of real science and its epistemological foundations. I would say that as long as one remains silent, he will be spared from Joe's attacks.
And even if he is disregarding some countervailing evidence in his "200 studies, this fact alone wouldn't mean that his intention is to diminish science."
- Joe scrupulously avoids any countervailing evidence. This isn't accidental. It is quite intentional. Now, I would agree that it is not exactly his intent to diminish science. He wants to justify his religious belief. But in doing so, he must be quite selective in what evidence he chooses to pay attention to, and he must actively eliminate any naturalistic explanations in his interpretation of that evidence. All this amounts to a willful rejection of scientific practice. He may not say to himself "I hate science". But that hatred is manifest.
I know you can be an atheist I don't thin any atheist is totally free knowledge that God is real
- You called yourself an atheist, didn't you? But you weren't. There are REAL atheists.
Not to my conscious mind I did not, i admitted already that you may not to your conscious mind,I;m talking about a subliminal.
- You lied to yourself. And you think that all atheists are the same. They aren't.
that is so stupid that comes from brainwashing that says Christians are stupider than atheists, I was a naturalists I sued the same things you are saying to christians who told me I knew God was real and I said they they were stupid.All said before a long time ago but the roles were reversed
- No, they aren't. I am a REAL atheist. And if you always believed in God deep down inside, then you weren't.
Skepie you nothing about philosophy everything I've ever seen you say about is stupid and wronghheaded,I;ve seen Ryan Rayan M take you to task on a lot of things
- He agrees with me more than he agrees with you. And I have become convinced by reading your philosophical musings that you don't understand nearly as much of it as you pretend. You don't even know what a priori means. You got Sartre totally wrong. And on and on.
Look he even stole my phrase about water off a duck's back. It's obvious when somene is into scientism
- You don't speak for atheists. You don't understand what their position is. You don't have a clue.
that's why you didn't go to graduate school? you impress people so inm secular philosophy they said you don't even need a phD.
- I already told you, my academic credentials exceed yours. And while I didn't study philosophy at a post-graduate level, I think I know mor about it than you. Your philosophical knowledge is limited to theistic philosophy.
Bull shit, you tried to label me with that you know it
- I can't help it if you don't understand what I wrote. It was an example. It was a lead-in to your own transgressions.
I know more than you will ever know abouit the scientific method I went to graduate school and studie in Ph.D .level classes you did not take. Using studies to make arguments is not a matter of scientific method twit. it's a matter of argumentation. it not the job of a scientist to argue for position. The methods were used ind the studies, they were already published they have to do with use of them.
- Don't flatter yourself. You are a scientific ignoramus.
That is utter bull shit you ignorant hack you have not read the book so you have no basis in understanding to say that but it;s nowhere near, not even one chapter,most of what i say is repeating a few things
- I refuse to buy your pseudo-scientific screed. But you are always trying to promote it. You have written plenty about it.
m-skeptical said...
You haven't offered any actual evidence that Joe attacks "basically any non-theist who practices science."
- I did suggest reading what I had to say about "scientism". Joe attacks with vitriol those who are outspoken in defense of real science and its epistemological foundations. I would say that as long as one remains silent, he will be spared from Joe's attacks.
bull shit. what you really mean is I expose the ideological crap of your littke science worship cult.
And even if he is disregarding some countervailing evidence in his "200 studies, this fact alone wouldn't mean that his intention is to diminish science."
which I am not
- Joe scrupulously avoids any countervailing evidence. This isn't accidental. It is quite intentional.
show me the evidence there is none. asserting it is not proof you must present it to show me it exists, it does not,I looked!
Now, I would agree that it is not exactly his intent to diminish science. He wants to justify his religious belief. But in doing so, he must be quite selective in what evidence he chooses to pay attention to, and he must actively eliminate any naturalistic explanations in his interpretation of that evidence. All this amounts to a willful rejection of scientific practice. He may not say to himself "I hate science". But that hatred is manifest.
put up or shut up your lying little theory is not proof asshole,
bull shit. what you really mean is I expose the ideological crap of your littke science worship cult.
- This is a gut who doesn't hate science????
show me the evidence there is none. asserting it is not proof you must present it to show me it exists, it does not,I looked!
- You didn't look very hard.. There ARE physiological and psychological explanations for religious experience. You actively reject all of them. See THIS.
put up or shut up your lying little theory is not proof asshole
- Please explain to us the abductive process you employed to arrive at your conclusion. What possible hypotheses did you consider, and what was your basis for rejecting them? Please tell us that you didn't start this whole project with a goal of of confirming what you already firmly believed.
bull shit. what you really mean is I expose the ideological crap of your little science worship cult.
- This is a gut who doesn't hate science????
Skepie you are not science. You must think you speak for science. A criticism of you is a criticism of science, I don't think so.
show me the evidence there is none. asserting it is not proof you must present it to show me it exists, it does not,I looked!
- You didn't look very hard.. There ARE physiological and psychological explanations for religious experience. You actively reject all of them. See THIS.
That's not the issue you are confused you can't follow an argument, keep it straight.We were talkie about legitimate scientific disiproofs of the studies aseptically the M scale.
MATERIALISTIC COUNTER CAUSALITY AS A COUNTER EXPLANATION OF mystical EXPERIENCES IS EASY TO DISPROVE. I do disprove the the book you refuse to read, coward,
put up or shut up your lying little theory is not proof asshole
- Please explain to us the abductive process you employed to arrive at your conclusion.
I never put the Mystical arguments into abductive from.
What possible hypotheses did you consider, and what was your basis for rejecting them? Please tell us that you didn't start this whole project with a goal of of confirming what you already firmly believed.
read the book stupid. I went to the effort to write a book the least you could do is read it, especially since you stupidly alleged you know all about it , that is the most ill bred dishonest con game.I refuse to read it because I know it's no good,screw you.the mind game of a first class shit.
Skepie you are not science. You must think you speak for science. A criticism of you is a criticism of science, I don't think so.
- You call science a "worship cult". You hate everything about it. You know nothing about it.
That's not the issue you are confused you can't follow an argument, keep it straight.We were talkie about legitimate scientific disiproofs of the studies aseptically the M scale.
- YOU follow the argument. I have said NOTHING about disproving those studies. I said YOU do not interpret the information from those studies in a scientific manner. YOU do not follow scientific method in YOUR OWN work. YOU draw conclusions from them that are not justified.
MATERIALISTIC COUNTER CAUSALITY AS A COUNTER EXPLANATION OF mystical EXPERIENCES IS EASY TO DISPROVE.
- Your "proof" uses invalid logic. Your "Argument From God Corrolate [sic]", which is the argument you make, doesn't prove anything at all, but that your core thesis. Read my analysis of the argument HERE. IT'S NOT A VALID ARGUMENT.
I do disprove the the book you refuse to read, coward
- Once again, you should listen to what I say. I DO NOT refuse to read the book. I refuse to BUY the book. Give me a copy, and I'll read it.
I never put the Mystical arguments into abductive from.
- Umm, can we stop pretending, and just stipulate that you don't know what abductive reasoning is?
read the book stupid. I went to the effort to write a book the least you could do is read it, especially since you stupidly alleged you know all about it , that is the most ill bred dishonest con game.I refuse to read it because I know it's no good,screw you.the mind game of a first class shit.
- OK. I'm waiting for my free copy. (And I know that you have done this before.) I'll be happy to write a full review.
Skepie you are not science. You must think you speak for science. A criticism of you is a criticism of science, I don't think so.
- You call science a "worship cult". You hate everything about it. You know nothing about it.
No I did not call science a worship cult I said you have a worship cult to worship science, the fault is not in science but in you.
That's not the issue you are confused you can't follow an argument, keep it straight.We were talkie about legitimate scientific disiproofs of the studies aseptically the M scale.
- YOU follow the argument. I have said NOTHING about disproving those studies. I said YOU do not interpret the information from those studies in a scientific manner. YOU do not follow scientific method in YOUR OWN work. YOU draw conclusions from them that are not justified.
yes you purposely shifted the meaning of my comment and thus got yourself out of trouble but dshonestly .
MATERIALISTIC COUNTER CAUSALITY AS A COUNTER EXPLANATION OF mystical EXPERIENCES IS EASY TO DISPROVE.
- Your "proof" uses invalid logic. Your "Argument From God Corrolate [sic]", which is the argument you make, doesn't prove anything at all, but that your core thesis. Read my analysis of the argument HERE. IT'S NOT A VALID ARGUMENT.
you don;t know what it uses because you refuse to read the book. stop pretending. you don't know.
I do disprove the the book you refuse to read, coward
- Once again, you should listen to what I say. I DO NOT refuse to read the book. I refuse to BUY the book. Give me a copy, and I'll read it.
I never put the Mystical arguments into abductive from.
- Umm, can we stop pretending, and just stipulate that you don't know what abductive reasoning is?
childish little dilatation! you don't know what that term means. asking that shows you don't. I was going to catch you on it but decide to give you a pass,since you made the cretinous you tell me what it means,
Here are google search picks showing that in 2015 I was talking about abductive argument,
Metacrock's Blog: The Abductive Version of The TS Argukment (1 of 3).
metacrock.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-abductive-version-of-thje-ts.html
Aug 31, 2015 - The abductive version of the argument can proceed with no references to Derrida whatsoever, although understanding him would no doubt ...
Metacrock's Blog: Abductive version TS argument (2 of 3)
skep: OK. I'm waiting for my free copy. (And I know that you have done this before.) I'll be happy to write a full review.
8:10 AM
sorry Skep I have to save the free copies for real commentators, people who will evaluate fairly and who understand real argument,
this topic is now closed.
Post a Comment