RufusAtticus

But is she topless? All the best ones are!

RufusAtticus

Welcome Denis & mb,

Feel free to introduce yourself in our <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">welcome forum</a>. We are happy to have you participate.

Mb, if you have anyproblems with things said in this forum. Don't hesitate to pm or email one or more mods.

scigirl

Hello mb,

I would like to welcome you to infidels as well - you'll find a variety of people here, from pure "naturalists" to some deists, to some intelligent design folks. Hope you find some entertaining and enlightening discussions here. You might even learn a thing or two!

scigirl

Denis Lamoureux

Hi,
Not sure what you mean by "naturalistic dogmatism"? Of course, the word "dogmatism" is a very loaded term and it carries a negative nuance.

Am I a naturalist? Yes, if this means that I attempt to understand the natural world in the context of natural laws & mechanisms. The best way to qualify this is to say I am a 'methodological naturalist.' In so doing, I'm leaving science simply in the realm of physical mechanisms and processes. And I'm NOT bringing in my God talk/notions. In words, I'm leaving the metaphysics (or if you wish, 'dogmatics') to another discussion. For those of you who have written scientific papers, you know well that any hint of metaphysics in a paper will get it rejected immediately.

Now, once finished the scientific exercise, I do indeed ask the "larger" questions (and we all do this)--call them metaphysical, theological, philosophical, etc. More specifically, I do make an intellectual "jump" from my science. Indeed, there is no formula or proof that can be used to go from things scientific to things dogmatic. AND I MUST UNDERLINE, that all my skeptical friends make this jump as well.

When the famed atheist Richard Dawkins states that Darwin allowed him to be a fulfilled atheist (BTW, Dick doesn't appear to have read the Darwin primary literature, but that's another story), he is also making a "jump" from his biology to his metaphysics. And if we must use the term "dogmatics," then Dawkins is ever bit as dogmatic as me. For that matter, Dick could even be called 'evangelical' in the way he 'preaches' his views to the world.

Science is dead silent with regard to metaphysics. There no test or instrument that can detect whether the world is teleological (with plan, purpose & promise) or dysteleological (without plan, purpose & promise). The best that can be done is to recognize that we are the ones making these 'dogmatic' statements. And the fun part is to try to determine who is making the best, most fair, most even-handed judgments with the data set we have before us from the scientifc data.

Cordially,
Denis

RufusAtticus

Denis,

Mind if I copy your comments to ChristianForums? I think a lot of young Christians there need to hear it.

Kevin Dorner

Denis,

The comment about "naturalistic dogmatism" may be found in <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001321&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

There have doubtless been earlier ones, but I think that this was the most recent.

Autonemesis

I wrestled with the origins question a long time ago. Then I realized that my "opponent" was wrestling me in the same way that Hobbes "wrestles" Calvin.

Denis Lamoureux

Hi,
You bet. You guys can copy & use anything I put on the web.
Denis

RufusAtticus

Thanx Denis. It's <a href="http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21910" target="_blank">here</a> if you want to read it.

GeoTheo

Denis,
I was wondering if you could tell me what denominations of Christianity are most receptive to "evolutionary creation"?