Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 06-25-2002, 03:15 PM

From <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000148" target="_blank">here at ARN</a>, an interesting question is put forth:

Quote:

I wasn't just referring to RB. A number of outspoken anti-IDists have said they are theists, both in this forum and out. In my opinion theism and naturalism are mutually exclusive world views. If an intelligent designer is compatible with your world view, why in the world would you want - passionately, in many cases - to exclude Him (Her/It) from science? Isn't that a case of putting on philosophical blinders before looking at the evidence? I don't agree that there is any scientific reason to insist that "you can never detect and demonstrate it [design]."

Any takers?

Automaton · 06-25-2002, 03:34 PM

It is interesting, because it (inadvertedly) reveals the mindset of the poster. He is basically saying "I am a theist, therefore I will insert God into science at every possible instance," in the form of a rhetorical question, then later dishonestly states a denial of this position would be being philosophically dogmatic, when that is the very thing the position starts off with. Simpletons (ad fuckoff-inem) never cease to amaze me.

Principia · 06-26-2002, 02:57 AM

Ibid:

Quote:

I too am a little confused as to why a self-described theist would get exercised over the idea that anything other than unplanned, purposeless, undirected mechanisms resulted in life. If you believe that God exists and created the universe, what's the problem with detecting evidence of that? IMHO the only reason to insist on only pure naturalistic mechanisms, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, is to prop up a philosophy of atheism.

So what about the claim that naturalistic mechanisms lead to atheism? Specifically, does science promote atheism? Perhaps the best way to quell ID is to show that science provides the best method for understanding the physical world while minimally affecting religious beliefs... But such a claim seems difficult to maintain.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-25-2002, 03:34 PM	#2
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	It is interesting, because it (inadvertedly) reveals the mindset of the poster. He is basically saying "I am a theist, therefore I will insert God into science at every possible instance," in the form of a rhetorical question, then later dishonestly states a denial of this position would be being philosophically dogmatic, when that is the very thing the position starts off with. Simpletons (ad fuckoff-inem) never cease to amaze me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.