Hugo Holbling

Instead of cheerleading from the sidelines, why don't the two of you join in and explain why Christianity is methodologically opposed to science? Moreover, since i'm not a Christian, you may also like to speculate as to how i nevertheless manage to conclude from scholarly opinion in the history of science that no such methodological conflict exists.

Aradia

Ahh. I see now. Cool. Let me know if you'd like any further help and/or refinements. I'd be more than happy to oblige.

SecularFuture

My quotes have now evolved into a small article entitled:




5 Points Against Theism by Tony S.

The existence of a god can not be tested by science, seen by the naked eye, nor detected by electrical devices. Therefore, god must be a supernatural being if he/she/it is believed be both omnipotent and omnipresent.

Definitions for the word ‘supernatural’:
- of or relating to existence outside the natural world
- attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
- of or relating to a deity
- of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; the miraculous

Definitions for the word ‘natural’:
- present in or produced by nature
- of, relating to, or concerning nature
- conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
- not acquired; inherent

1) What religionists interpret as being acts of divine intervention could be the acts of natural phenomenon. To know, without doubt or “religious faith”, if something is more than a natural phenomenon, you would need to understand the nature of all natural phenomenon. Only then will you have reason to rule out all natural explanations, and rule in a super-natural one.

2) Unlike history books, religious scripture tries to justify the existence of a world that can only be believed and not seen. This is why many freethinkers are able to have “reasoned faith”, a kind of faith that is supported by analytical reason, in history books and not religious scripture.

3) Anyone with a little spare time and creative writing ability could have written religious scripture. A god is not the only being capable of inspiring or writing books.

4) If there are still other possible explanations for what theists interpret as being of a divine origin or nature, there is still room for doubt and further investigation. And where there is room for further investigation, there is no absolute knowledge or absolute truth. Untested - personal - interpretations of so-called supernatural events could be nothing more than natural phenomenon.

5) Any philosophy that promotes the use of magical thinking over the use of critical thinking is a hindrance to scientific and intellectual accomplishment. Progress toward objective solutions can not be made through subjective thinking.



How does it sound now?

wildernesse

Parentheses added. I don't really see how the part I've enclosed in parentheses follows from your first statement. The first statement deals with how you cannot detect a god using some natural methods--therefore a god must be supernatural. Also, the part in parentheses cannot be part of points against (general) theism, because (general) theism may/may not contain these characteristics--god that is omnipotent and omnipresent.




Yes, supernatural events could be natural events. Yet your argument works both ways. Without all-knowledge of natural events, no one can say conclusively whether or not an unexplained event is natural or not.




I don't think that scriptures "justify" a supernatural world, but that many narrate interaction between the natural and supernatural. There is no justification in that IMO--as most do not try to prove that such events ocurred, they state that such and such happened and comment on those occurrances. Again, this is not a point against (general) theism, but only against theism with scripture.

Well, at least you've narrowed the "anyone" down to those who have creative writing ability--and from my experience, those people are few and far between. Most people who think they can write well flatter themselves--and don't worry, I'm not one of them.

Again, this is not a point against (general) theism, but against theism with scripture.

I don't see how this is a different statement than 1). No absolutes work both ways, just as you cannot be absolutely sure an unexplained event is supernatural, you cannot be absolutely sure that it is not.

I disagree. Many of the scientists I know are theists. Their beliefs do not hinder their investigation of evolutionary theory, and they are well-published and respected in their fields. Their theism does not tell them about the ecology of tropical plants, or the mating systems of individuals, or about inheritance of traits, but rather structures their worldview. I seriously doubt that if they became non-theists, they would be more productive researchers.

And I would like an example of objective thinking and subjective thinking in regards to solving an objective goal.


My 2 cents.
--tibac

SecularFuture

wildernesse
I was just defining my terms in the first part.

And I totally agree.

Good point. You're absolutely correct.

I will change "theism" to.... what should I change it to? Theistic Religionism?

Yeah... I'm just now starting to realize this. I will make the appropriate changes.

Subjective thinking is very biased. Objective thinking is very 'agnostic', for lack of a better word; unbiased. Its best, in my opinion, when people leave their personal opinions at home with investigating something.

Thank you very much for your comments.

wildernesse

I don't know that you should refrain from using the word "theism", but that you should qualify it in order to make your points more accurate.

In other words, I would not say that theism is suspect because it relies on scripture that assumes a supernatural element operating in the natural world. If I were you, I would say that theism that relies on scripture containing supernatural assumptions is suspect, because (Secular Future's point here). Of course, that is more involved--and you could probably write a clearer sentence than that, but that's what I mean by qualifying the word theism.

Theism is an overarching term--and really general theism can only be said to have one thing in common, a belief in god/gods--not scripture or an omnimax god. So, while your points might have merit in regard to a specific area of a particular religion (or several religions), they might not be points that have any relation with theism in general.

Yes, I'm being picky. But if you want to state your views as clearly as possible, and as accurately, that is what I would do.

--tibac

Stephen T-B

I liked the first set best, but have doubts about No. 3:
“You need not know everything about the natural world to affirm the existence of something natural. You do need to know everything about the natural world to know [without doubt or faith] if something is more than a natural phenomenon [supernatural]”

Take the first sentence: could it apply to someone who has lived in the tropics all his life and not had access to books, films, tv etc in respect of - say - snow flakes? How could such a person know such things were natural?
Why should an Aboriginal, born (1900) and bred in the Australian interior, know that atoms are “natural”? Or black holes?
Can you, SecularFuture, “affirm the existence of something natural” which is outside your experience? If I were to tell you that I am a specialist in quantum physics and that there are particles which can be in two places at once, how would your knowledge of the natural world enable you to tell if I were talking about something real or imagined?

If the first part of the statement doesn’t hold up, then neither does the second.

SecularFuture

wildernesse
Groovy.

No – no. Being picky is an excellent thing. That means that you don’t accept EVERYTHING and ANYTHING, and you prefer quality over quantity.

Thank you again.

SecularFuture

Stephen T-B
Here’s a revised version of the same point:
What religionists interpret as being acts of divine intervention could be the acts of natural phenomenon. To know, without doubt or “religious faith”, if something is more than a natural phenomenon, you would need to understand the nature of all natural phenomenon. Only then will you have reason to rule out all natural explanations, and rule in a super-natural one.

They wouldn’t.

No.

Stephen T-B

Or:
Since the supernatural is defined by the absence of a natural explanation, we must know every possible natural explanation before asserting a thing to be supernatural.
?