Albion

Could you explain the problem with suspension of belief? Why does a person have to believe one way or the other? I mean, what's so much more important about belief than knowledge that belief is the only thing that matters in a discussion like this? I don't appreciate being forced into taking a position that I don't actually hold, just because others have decided that belief is the only thing that counts. I can't say that God did anything and I can't say that God didn't. I mean, I'm sorry, but I simply can't. I don't know.

Denis Lamoureux

You bet! I just about puked when I read the letter his morning in the Edmonton Journal. Education is supposed to be fun and an adventure, and fundie Xians are trying to push biology back to the early 19th century.

I'll try to track her down. But really, she is such a delightful human being. But better yet, I'll see if I can get her father on board--he's the problem. Love to have a piece of him.
Denis

Denis Lamoureux

Hi again,
There is nothing "wrong" with it. And plse don't think I want to force you into anything. I very much appreciate what you are saying and I really appreciate your candour & honesty (hell, if Xians had a small measure of humility like you the Church would be a much better place and we wouldn't be having this silly ass form over origins because they would be acknowledging that they haven't spent a day in the biological academy and that they know dick about evolution).

But this is my point: the agnostic position is not a substantive position. They other positions are--they make definitive claims.

Makes sense?
Denis

Albion

Well, yes and no. I mean, I know they make definitive claims, but from my perspective, all I can see is definitive claims being made about something that can't be known definitively, so to an extent I'd just have to say that those claims are purely personal ones and are irrelevant in any other frame of reference. And my purely personal preference is to just not make the claim in the first place. Like I've said to others in discussions on other boards, I think I just lack the spiritual gene or something.

The scientific approach is agnostic as far as ultimate causes are concerned. Creationists and other religion-based critics are very fond of saying that methodological naturalism implies philosophical naturalism, but I don't agree (and I gather you don't either). When talking about evolution, which is part of science, I don't see why the agnostic approach isn't as valid as any of the others. I mean, the scientific explanation stops short of claims about causality; I don't see a problem with accepting what it says and leaving it at that.

Denis Lamoureux

Again fabulous!
That indeed is what a postivist epistemology is all about (ie, logical positivism & the verification principle).

And I like the "O" in IMO. It is an opinion, and not written in the stars. Thus, such a view of knowledge can be challenged. And here's how:

I'm sure you love someone. Prove it to me empirically. If you say that your endorphins, etc rise when you are around that person and that's the 'empirical' evidence, I'll just return with "a lot of things raise endophin etc levels. That's not proof of love." You may say that your lover kisses, hugs, etc. you. But that's not proof of love, only an external behavior, and there's lots of kissing & hugging going on without love.

Ya can't put love in a test tube, but I'm willing to bet you KNOW there is such a "thing" as love. Despite your claim of having a positivist epistemology, I'm sure there is room somewhere in your theory of knowledge for non-empirical realites. Am I right?

Can you look at your mom and say, "Mom, neurological cells that evolved for the survival
of the herd are firing right now" instead of "I love you mom"? I can't.

Denis

Denis

Albion

Oh, also meant to say - I understand what you mean about not trying to force me into anything, but whenever there's a poll about evolution, the choices almost always seem to be variations on the theme of "God did it" and then "it happened without God." Well, to answer those polls, I do feel forced to take a position I don't agree with, because I don't ever seem to be given the choice of saying "ultimate cause unknown." I opt for the "it happened without God" choice, but I always feel I'm being made to lie in the process.

Dank

Denis I find your ability to look fact in the eye commendable. It seems, though, you still need the theist 'comfort blanket' even if it is held at arms length.

For example, in this thread you decry the 'god of the gaps' arguement yet later present the 'gap' of the existence of love and insinuate the supernatural. I think we have a bit to learn about neurochemistry...don't you?

P.S. Welcome to II, I expect you will enjoy the forums

[edited for PS]

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Dank ]</p>

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Denis Lamoureux:
Amen-Moses, do recognize the assumption you've made here? It's subtle. You state, "Absent any evidence", but what type of evidence are you talking about? And what are your cannons for determining good evidence.

I'm open to suggestions.

If you say, scientific evidence and the cannons of science, then you've not only loaded the epistemological dice but you've disqualified yourself from knowing a realm that might be known only through non-scientific means/methods.

Why does this follow? Just because I use forensic science to examine the murder scene does not mean I discount the medium that say's they can "see" the murder. All I can do is test their "seeing" to see if it matches the facts, if they ever did I might give some weight to their "sight" but until that time I would at least remain doubtful that their source of evidence is anything other than imagination.

Furthermore, the positivist position suffers from self-referential incoherence. You can't use the scientific method to justify the scientific method?

Not sure I follow you here, what other method is there? If you can demonstrate another method of evaluating evidence that actually works reliably I might be tempted to use it.

Anyhow the scientific method is just a tool, your statement is the same as saying "you can't use a hammer to justify a hammer!", the justification of the scientific method is that it works reliably for everyone everywhere, the same cannot be said for any other method that I have come across.

btw Amen is an Egyptian word meaning "coming into being" and is also the name of the Egyptian creator god, why do you think it only comes into use when a guy named Moses (another Egyptian word meaning "son of") leads his gang out of Egypt!

Amen-Moses

RufusAtticus

Sorry Denis, but I had to. The board software would have automatically replaced it with about 10 [wash your mouth]s. I chose to replace it with [rubbish] instead.

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22029" target="_blank">Click Here to see the discussion and poll.</a>

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Denis,

I'm a little confused about your statement. Evolution is not goal oriented. How then is it unscientific to see it as dysteleological?

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>