jj

It's on neither side. You appear to be unable to separate how people use something from how it, itself, works.

You're a troll. You know your entire set of questions is a lame joke. Your first "question" here is suborned logic of almost heroic proportion.

Gurdur

Fair enough, though I really do think you could have made a bit more of an effort on that part.

Since you've been exposed to far richer versions of definitions of atheism.

Not at all !
Metaphysical naturalism is still compatible with other POV's than just atheism or agnosticism; and the terms "atheism" and "metaphysical naturalism" are very far from being equivalent.

I think it is; fideism can be firmly reconciled with metaphysical naturalism, for example, with only a few odd twists and turns.

That would be true except you haven't - and nor has anyone else to date - succeeded in shipwrecking metaphysical naturalism.

Gotcha !
I was wondering if you or anyone else would fall for my little trap.
The problem for you is, we're both right on this score.
Allow me to illustrate:
In all the everyday, boring, humdrum studies of proton transport over a chloroplast membrane (just for example), no other explanation other than a metaphysical naturalist one is even considered as a working hypothesis.
You see my point ?

It's only when examining theist or similar claims (UFO's etc.), that non-metaphysically-naturalist explanations are used as hypotheses.
See ?

Gotcha again.

Just who is claiming that such things do not exist ?
I stated that no such claims have yet been proven, and many have been disproven.

Lourdes: IIRC, the rate of accepted "miracles" by the theist judging panel there falls under the rate of natural remission. See the point ?
Furthermore, were your Christian God to be true, I find it personally very odd indeed He would only evidence himself in the main at Lourdes.
I can easily postulate a better and more satisfying explanation, one involving a benevolent, local and overworked water-sprite or naiad.
Still, romance aside, natural remission works fine as an explanation; to state we don't yet know the mechanics of it is only to state that we do not as yet know everything.

As for the prayer studies, the only prayer study done with proper controls and comparisons to date was the one carried out by theists through the Mayo Clinic, and it failed to find evidence of any effect from prayer, much to the dismay of the study's originators.

As for miracles of saints, would you mind pointing me to a peer-reviewed scientific study that shows proof of such working ?
One that hasn't been already demonstrated flawed ?

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Bill Snedden

It IS a well-written article, Tercel. Thanks for sharing it. Of course, I don't agree with your conclusions (big surprise, right? ).

A couple of thoughts. I read the Koons article you referenced. Very interesting, but it seems to me that his argument has a gaping hole that ends up disproving theism as well.

First, here is his argument (from <a href="http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/natreal.pdf" target="_blank">The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism</a> by Dr. Robert Koons.) I'm just listing the premises here to save space.

SR = Scientific Realism
RN = Representational Naturalism
ER = Essential Reliability
PS = Preference for Simplicity
ON = Ontological Naturalism

To begin with, the term denied in his conclusion appears no where in the premises, so I have to deduct some points for lack of formality...

My issue with this is in premise 4. There seems to be an unstated premise in this argument; namely, that things cannot be causes in and of themselves. However, if this is true, any postulated foundation for "why" the universe is the way it is must necessarily have a cause outside of itself, including any type of creator being.

Arguing that God is an effect that "needs no cause" is simply begging the question. If "god" can be so, why not the universe itself?

And this touches on the other point I wished to make, regarding necessity. In your article you write,

But, of course empiricism only works if there is, in fact, one way the world should be. If natural laws were not "regular", induction wouldn't be a valid method of gaining knowledge and hence the empirical approach would be useless. The fact that we can imagine it being different ways only highlights why we use the empirical approach, not why it's valid.

It is obviously true that something must be a brute fact. It could be that a god exists who is the foundation of all that is, or it could be that all that is simply is. Either way, there must be a foundation to the regress and that foundation will be a brute fact, a necessity, and I can't see any way that the existence of "necessity" in any way denies the validity of empiricism or contradicts metaphysical naturalism (assuming that "necessity" is not "god" ).

Finally, to answer the question in the thread title: Whose side is Science on? All of Humanity.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Tercel

Of course, your "mistakes" were really a clever trap, so that me pointing out your mistakes was really falling for your trap. Have you ever considered a career in PR?

Honestly: No. Your illustration illustrates the useage of methodological naturalism, you said it also apparently uses metaphysical naturalism: Care to explain how exactly? -Or is this another clever trap I've just fallen into?

Um: exactly my point. What exactly am I supposed to be seeing here?

You know Gurdur, these are pretty clever traps you've got here: Even having apparently fallen in them I can't seem to find any trap.
For no doubt, of course, your latest "mistake" of misquoting yourself is simply a cunning trap.

No.
1. Even if you had a point here (which you don't), the scientific analysis and subsequent declaration as "inexplicable to science" of numerous miracle claims over the course of many years (even if you think the experts were wrong) makes it false to say "scientific research has found nothing as yet to substantiate such claims"
2. As I recall, the judging panel is not a "theist" one, but includes those who reject the possibility of miracles outright.
3. The rate of "natural remission" has nothing to do with the price of fish. The analysis rules out those healings that could potentially be the result of natural causes, the prescribed treatment, incorrect diagnoses etc.

So would I if he did.

If an image of God appeared bannered across the sky visible to everyone in the world and it said "btw I exist" and everyone in the world heard it in their own language, no doubt "natural phenomina" would work fine as an explanation and to state that we didn't know the mechanics of it would be only to state that we didn't know everything.
Sure.

Which one was the Mayo one? I'm not sure I've ever heard of it...
As far as I am aware there have been 4 studies carried out that had sample sizes sufficient for their results to reach statistical significance:
1. Byrd's 1988: "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population" Southern Medical Journal 81: 826-829
2. Harris, Gowda et al's 1999: "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit" Arch Intern Med. 159:2273-2278
3. Cha, Wirth and Lobo's 2001: "Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization–Embryo Transfer? Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial." Journal of Reproductive Medicine 46:781-787
4. Leibovici's 2001: "Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial" British Medical Journal, 323, 1450-1451

Gurdur, again whether or not you think the evidence proves anything it is still wrong to say that no evidence exists.

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Bill Snedden

I think Gurdur may be referring to:

The effects of intercessory prayer, positive visualization, and expectancy on the well-being of kidney dialysis patients. William J. Matthews, et al, JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association Nov 21, 2001 v286 i19 p2376(1)

This study failed to demonstrate any statistically significant relationship between IP and well-being, but I think the study was done at UMA.

I'm not sure that's completely true. If the studies do not support the hypothesis, their mere existence certainly doesn't count as evidence.

The well-documented flaws in the Byrd & Harris studies render their results invalid. The Leibovici study found no statistical significance in mortality between the prayer & control groups, so that also doesn't seem to support the hypothesis.

That leaves only the Cha study and I'm unable to find anything more than an abstract on it.

So, I would say that from what I know of the Byrd, Harris, and Leibovici studies, they don't qualify as evidence of any kind. Assuming however that the Cha study does demonstrate statistically significant results in a properly controlled study, it would represent evidence (although we could still argue about its value).

I think that might be what Gurdur meant; that the studies of which he was aware were either flawed or had negative results and were thus useless as evidence.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Tercel

No doubt you know best.

Yes it is - there have been other times and places other than 17th century theist Europe: None of them invented modern science.

Ha ha...

I don't, but I would be extremely interested to see numbers for this if anyone's got them.

That's a rather bold assertion: But no doubt you can back it up with some authoritative evidence... please do.
I'm intrigued to know also what constitutes a "great scientist".

That's the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? You have yet to provide any survey data. Oh and you've mischaracterise the nature of my comment here: I'm not making an assertion, I'm making a suggestion as to a possible bias in the statistics.

If by "hardly anyone" you mean the metaphysical naturalists + the vast majority of people who never think about these things, then obviously what you say is true.

Yup, making it IMO inconsistent at a fairly fundamental level.

Hardly. Methodological naturalism is a basic requirement for recognising miracles.

WJ

jj!

You said:

"It's on neither side. You appear to be unable to separate how people use something from how it, itself, works."

"You're a troll. You know your entire set of questions is a lame joke. Your first "question" here is suborned logic of almost heroic proportion."


jj, but you haven't justified why or how science is used? I asserted that it is used by both sides; does this mean you agree or disagree? (Surely you don't agree with me.) Why?

Please tell us what it is you are trying to say. Tell us or describe if you can, as you infer, the differences between how something works v. how it is used(?).




Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Ummm...I dissent...

First handful of straw grabbed...

Second handful...

Third...

Forth...my god, the tension is killing me...when will he stuff it, when will he stuff it...?



Well, once a rationalist, always a rationalist, I suppose.

Ok, enough. Science is not a being that can or cannot be "superior." It is a tool. Please stick to deifying fictional creatures.

And stop with the stuffing of the straw already. You're giving me a keppy ache.

"Beliefs" as the theist understands that word are inherently fraudulent since they assume as true that which will never be demonstrated to be true, aka, wish-fulfillment.

The intended or contextual meaning of the theistic conception of "beliefs" does not apply to the scientific method; indeed it is anathema to it, if you'll pardon the pun.

I being pedantic, because I've seen this kind of disparate intended meaning leapfrogging go on around here far too often.

Slip in the word in one context, then apply a different intended meaning into another context in order to stuff the straw man, i.e., "I believe in God; scientists believe in Many Worlds, therefore, we both believe and are equivalent in our approach to life."

The technical term for this fallacy escapes me, but I'm surprised it's escaped everyone else.

And there you have it. The straw man is stuffed.

We shouldn't only "believe things that have been proven by Science," equating that which can be demonstrated to be true with belief in fairy tales.

This is nothing more than a semantics dance thinly veiled.

"Belief" doesn't enter into the scientific lexicon, other than through a vernacular crossover; a shorthand with no equivalent contextual meaning, so to stuff such a straw man in this way is both pointless and disingenuous, IMO.

There is a significant, obvious, qualitative difference between a theist stating, "I believe in God" and a scientist stating, "I believe in a ten dimensional universe."

Your entire position hinges upon equivocating those two disparate contextual meanings.

One is reasoned; the other is conditioned, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

Who cares? "Basic" axioms and/or methodological principles of modern science are discarded left and right as new information is analyzed.

The "laws" of nature are things we wrote in order to organize, because that is what our brains do. They are not immutable.

Utterly incorrect on so many levels that I will have to stop here.

Sorry, Tercel, but unlike many others here, I find nothing of merit in your paper, other than the deliberate attempt to force the wrong definitions of terms upon us in order to stuff a straw man.

Science is not immutable; there are no unbreakable laws; and the universe is exceedingly complex, far too complex, it can and has been argued, for anything as simplistic as a magical fairy god king blinking it into existence.

If you can explain to me lopsided celestrial orbits and asymmetrical galaxies as necessary results of the "parsimony" of a mystical fairy god king magically blinking everything into existence because hesheit has that ineffable power, then be my guest.

This kind of deliberate, tortured semantics in order to pretend one word means the same thing for all intended contexts (180 degrees opposite of apologetics weaseling whenever errancy is discussed, BTW) just grates on me.

Science seeks out new questions in the hopes of finding answers; religion mandates the answers so that no one questions.

They are diametrically opposed only from the theist standpoint, since belief is necessarily predicated on the assumption that something is true regardless of the fact that there exists and will never exist any evidence to support it.

That's the whole point of "faith" and instead of seeing that as a glaring klaxon warning anybody away from such obvious nonsense, you seem to see it as a call to torture semantics.

Have fun with that.

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

jj

Why should I? The question of how it's used is NOT the same as "what side is it on".

And you knew that when you asked. You're a wasteful, ridiculous, unclever troll.

Vorkosigan

Fact is that the majority of scientists now are not theists, and nearly all great scientists are atheists....
Problem: roughly 40% of scientists are theists, but less than 5% of great scientists are.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a rather bold assertion: But no doubt you can back it up with some authoritative evidence... please do.
I'm intrigued to know also what constitutes a "great scientist".

Tercel, studies show that scientists are majority atheist. Using scientists accepted into the National Academy as the definition of "great scientist," the level of atheism rises to over 90%. See the work of Larson 1997 and Leuba 1916 on this matter, also the NORC religious data is nice if you can find it, since it breaks scientists out by profession. I assumed you knew of it, since it is rather common knowledge, and widely cited in discussions such as this.

Here's an article on the recent survey work
<a href="http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</a>

If you know of a miracle "recognized" by methodological naturalism, by all means bring for the evidence as scientifically presented. AFAIK there are none.

Most metaphysical naturalists take the success of methdological naturalism as support for their belief about the way reality works. You believe that this is not the case. I have not seen any comprehensive rendering from you of the contradiction you see between these two positions. Can you flesh this out more clearly? Your initial foray at the beginning of this thread was confused and unclear on this vital point.

Vorkosigan