Bede

Hello all,

Madmax, supernatural claims can be validated by whether they are logical, have a high explanatory value, are parsimonious, are consistent with other knowledge, are consistent with subjective experience and whether they are ethical. And no, I'm not going to discuss specific claims.

IntenCity, my commitment is temporal and intellectual (not to mention financial - college fees!) as well as emotional. I fear we are not talking on a par and I've argued this with so many people that I'm just bored now unless they come in at quite a high level. Unless you can add something new I'm not going to refute you point by point. My position is that there are certainly points of contention - some like the eternity of the world go Christianity's way, others like evolution go natural science's. However, there is no deep level conflict and the relationship has usually been harmonious and mutually supportive. Much the same can be said of the relationship between a husband and wife!

If you want to discuss the sociologies of science and Christianity then I'm afraid I would have to insist on your being familiar with some basic texts and without your positivistic attitude. Let me know if you want titles.

Michael, it's Toby Huff - not Tony. Sorry. I'm quite enjoying it although he's rather rude about Needham at times. On book burning, you made a polemical point which had you added 'but everyone else at the time was just as bad' might have been rather blunted if a bit more honest.

On weapons and stuff - nothing is morally neutral but you need trained scientists to create these weapons and to suggest all research on them is just a spin off is highly niave. Perhaps that's what your Government tells you... My point is that you can only compare the sociology of science and religion as they both are at the same time in the same society. Thus bringing up burning people in the Middle Ages is invalid.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

madmax2976

Then your statement here:

..seems completely off the mark.

Naturalism likewise uses the criteria of logic, high explanatory value, parsimony, subjective experience and consistency with other knowledge. The only one I see not fitting is whether its "ethical" or not, as that has no evident bearing on validating the truth of a thing.

It is due to the application of these criteria that naturalism has been able to demonstrate its usefulness. Likewise, the application of these criteria have demonstrated that supernaturalism can't even get out of the proverbial starting gate.

Of course naturalism adhere's to other well-proven criteria as well, such as: testability, repeatability, falsifiability and peer review, making it even more robust and reliable.

Only by drastically lowering the standards can supernaturalism give the appearance of being useful or effective.

Daggah

Bede, I can't think of a single scientific discovery made in the hopes of finding a more effective way of killing people. Weapons are made with scientific discoveries AFTER (often fairly well after) those discoveries are made.

The morality of these discoveries remains neutral.

Daydreamer

Get bored and ignore your opponents arguments, rather intellectually dishonest don't you think?

The eternity of the what? Explain. More examples of things that go "Christianities way" would be appreciated.

So Galileo was never persecuted by the church? Newton never pestered for suggesting a force other than some god could be holding the universe together? Darwin was left alone after publishing The Origins of Species instead of being hounded for being a 'godless' heathen? The churches didn't make every step towards safer and more reliable abortion tech a battle? The Religious Right today isn't trying to end any and all stem cell research?

Individuals, especially the earlier scientists, thought they were merely 'revealing god's plan' etc., and in that sense you may be correct. However, history is quite clear on the point that organized religion does not share the same views.

Horrible analogy. I think a religious husband and wife beater married to a scientist wife who has been pumping iron for 400 years until the day she can boot the Man-of-the-House out for good is more appropriate.

10-1 odds they're fawning treatments of Christianity by Christians.

Would you be willing to pick up a few books yourself?

If you consider herbcraft, the ancestor of botany and the cause for many of those who were labeled 'witches' and put to death, a science, then this is false.

Kenny

Her name is Sarah. She’s graduating at the same time I am with a major in Art History and a minor in Anthropology. We’ll be getting married on June 22. I would love to post pictures if I can figure out how Also, what would be the appropriate forum?

Thanks, but actually this is the only publicly accessible board I frequent, at least presently.

God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny

I have not. Thanks for the recomandation!

Gurdur

Hiya Kenny,

If you post me the pix per email, then I can host them for you and you post the links here.

tim@mathom.com

The best forum for that is probably <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">the "Welcome! Introductions & Help "</a> forum.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Bede
Concessions are in order.
You will save us a lot of pain if you explain exactly what kind of conflict would qualify as deep level and what would qualify as "petty" or shallow level.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that the conflict is not a deep level one? You need to demonstrate that your system of classification is not a self-serving or arbitrary one.

We know of cases where married couples have huge problems yet they dismiss them as minor, or petty (of course until the divorce is filed). Dismissing a conflict as minor can be a form of denial, especially where there is some emotional pain involved in facing and acknowledging the conflict. As you have admitted, you have some emotional investment in this discussion. This fits right into my analogy. Though science and xstianity dont even need to be bedfellows.
It will cost time and money to obtain those texts. If you read the texts and yet is incapable of presenting a few summarised arguments, then I doubt you expect us to be inspired enough to seek the texts and buy them. This idea of making book recommendations sounds like some sort of evasive tactic. Its a cop-out.
My point exactly.

Frankly Bede, its really arrogant to arrogate yourself the responsibility of teeling us which books we should go and read in order to come in at a "high level". If all you are capable of is list books instead of argumentation, then I am afraid we may not be able to engage in any edifying refutation.

Which by the way, would be such a shame.

Vorkosigan

Madmax, supernatural claims can be validated by whether they are logical, have a high explanatory value, are parsimonious, are consistent with other knowledge, are consistent with subjective experience and whether they are ethical. And no, I'm not going to discuss specific claims.

But that's just it. Supernatural claims are illogical, have no explanatory value (godidit), are fiat declarations (so orthagonal to parsimony), are totally inconsistent with other knowledge, are inconsistent with subjective and intersubjective experience and are completely unethical. No supernatural claim fits any of the criteria outlined by Bede.

Michael

Oolon Colluphid

&lt;wanders in, looks round slightly bemused&gt;

Hey Bede, have you actually defined what 'supernatural' means?

I thought that science was about finding out how the world is. If the world includes gods and aberrations to the normal running of things, then great -- let's analyse them and see how they fit in! From that point of view, there is no such thing as the supernatural: whatever the world is like, however weird and capricious parts of it may be, they are still how it is, and so, natural. Is the supernatural only that which cannot be looked into, which is too quicksilver to ever describe? If so, how do you know it exists?

TTFN, Oolon

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>